(3) M/s Rambhajo's v. ACIT ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

175 DTR 161Reported decision#23133 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 271 Section 271AAB(1)(c)Section 274

Judgments citing (3) M/s Rambhajo's v. ACIT ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…“undisclosed Income” in the definition given u/s. 271AAB of the Act. Since Rs. 3 cr. cannot be termed as “Undisclosed Income” as per sec. 271AAB of the Act, no penalty can be levied against the assessee. (3) M/s Rambhajo's Vs. ACIT ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 175 DTR 161 (JP) The levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory. In the instant case, it therefore needs to be examined whether there is any basis for levy of penalty or non- levy thereof and the same will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the purposes of levy of penalty, what has to be seen is that whether the surr…

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1008/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

…“undisclosed Income” in the definition given u/s. 271AAB of the Act. Since Rs. 3 cr. cannot be termed as “Undisclosed Income” as per sec. 271AAB of the Act, no penalty can be levied against the assessee. (3) M/s Rambhajo's Vs. ACIT ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 175 DTR 161 (JP) The levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory. In the instant case, it therefore needs to be examined whether there is any basis for levy of penalty or non-levy thereof and the same will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the purposes of levy of penalty, what has to be seen is that whether the surren…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Central Circle-1 vs. Shri Prashant Gupta 301, Anukampa Mansion-I, M.I. Road, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 424/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT) &

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 44ASection 5

…he quantum proceedings but the same 24 DCIT Vs. Shri Prashant Gupta cannot be treated as undisclosed income for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271AAB. The ld AR placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Rambhajo’s Vs ACIT 175 DTR 161 order dated 11/01/2019. The precise observation was made by the Coordinate Bench at para 39 of its order, which reads as under: “Now, coming to surrender made on account of cash advances for land purchases in the statement recorded under s. 132(4) of the Act. During the course of search, a diary has been found wherein there are notings relating t…