SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer is not took place this advance receipt is not chargeable to tax under the Act. Now, we have to see that the law permits to receive the money in advance or not? The receipt of money in cash w.e.f. 01.06.2015 considered as specified sum under the provision of section 269SS of the act and since, the money has been

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer is not took place this advance receipt is not chargeable to tax under the Act. Now, we have to see that the law permits to receive the money in advance or not? The receipt of money in cash w.e.f. 01.06.2015 considered as specified sum under the provision of section 269SS of the act and since, the money has been

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

price is also not verifiable for books of accounts, meaning thereby the details mentioned in the seized documents cannot be corroborated with the transactions recorded in the regular books of accounts. e) The assessee company recognizes the sale of flats only when the flats are fully ready to be sold and title is transferred to the purchaser and the possession

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

SANDEEP KHERADA,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

prices of gold jewellery Rs. 56,36,749 Direct/Indirect expenses Rs. 1,15,098 Rs. 57,51,847 Profit of business Rs. 3,50,088 As the assessee has declared profit of business of Rs. 40,983/- in his return of income, therefore, balance of Rs. 3,09,105/- is added to the total income of the assessee. 3.4 During

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority." The onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the interest expenditure for the borrowed funds have been used wholly and exclusively only for the purpose of making investments which have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. PAWAN KUMAR JHALANI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transferred to Central Circle-4, Jaipur as per order u/s. 127 of the Act. As is evident from the record that the assessne, Shri Pawan Jhalani, is an Individual and a gold bullion trader, doing business activity in the name of Krishnam jewellers, during the year under consideration had made unaccounted sale of Gold bullion amounting to Rs.11

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

prices of gold were doubling or tripling after the next day or the jewellery would not have been available on the next day. The rush was at the Jewellers apparently due to the reason that some people wanted to buy jewellery in cash using the demonetised currency which they could not have deposited in the bank account as that