DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper\nwas not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and\ndespite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp\nimaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper\nwas not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and\ndespite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp\nimaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS form was furnished. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the assessee requested to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 24,91,375/-. 4. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that the assessee claimed that he has received cash from various parties, however, no documentary evidence was furnished before

ARJUNSINH HARISINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARDOLI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

69B, 69C or 69D whether the income is offered by the assessee in the return of income or assessment is made by Assessing Officer under these Sections. The amendment was brought to plug the loophole of taxing the unexplained cash in demonetized currency. The argument of assessee that the amendment brought by legislation is in contradiction with law and policy