SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1376/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 March 2019AY 2015-1644 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the surrendered income did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Explanation to section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee surrendered long-term capital gains during a search and seizure operation. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied penalty under section 271AAB, which the CIT(A) reduced. Both the assessee and revenue filed appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the income surrendered during search constitutes 'undisclosed income' for the purpose of penalty under Section 271AAB, and whether the penalty is mandatory.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAB,Section 132(4),Section 10(38)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH ‘A’, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1376/JP/2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &, Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 1376/JP/2018
ITA No. 1435/JP/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1.

The Appellant- Shri Vasudev Agarwal, Kota.

2.

The Respondent – The DCIT, Central Circle, Kota. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 1376 & 1435/JP/2018) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 271AAB

All 797 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →