“levy of penalty”

Shri Krishnaraj Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR श्री संदीDeep गोसाई, न्यायिक

Ajmer Industries LLP, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure of levy of penalty disputed, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order ... inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical except the difference in the amount of levy of penalty in other cases. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore, for the purpose

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure of levy of penalty disputed, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order ... inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical except the difference in the amount of levy of penalty in other cases. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore, for the purpose

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure of levy of penalty disputed, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order ... inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical except the difference in the amount of levy of penalty in other cases. The ld. DR did not raise any specific objection against taking that case as a lead case. Therefore, for the purpose

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

being the interest income offered in the assessment proceedings. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer levying the penalty the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds of the appeal taken by the assessee the relevant finding ... issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 270A of I. Tax Act without specifying the default of the assessee.” Ld CIT (A) upheld the levy of penalty with the following observations: “5.5 As per the provisions of section 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee was liable

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

proceeding for Rs. 20,61,640/-. The same was considered as undisclosed brokerage income and consequent to that action the ld. AO also levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act vide order dated 23.03.2022 contending that the assessee has concealed the income as per provision of section ... computation of income and paying taxed due thereon. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, Ld CIT (A) confirmed the levy of penalty merely for the reason that the income offered to tax by way of revised computation was not disclosed in the return of income. Only

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

proceeding for Rs. 20,61,640/-. The same was considered as undisclosed brokerage income and consequent to that action the ld. AO also levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act vide order dated 23.03.2022 contending that the assessee has concealed the income as per provision of section ... computation of income and paying taxed due thereon. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, Ld CIT (A) confirmed the levy of penalty merely for the reason that the income offered to tax by way of revised computation was not disclosed in the return of income. Only

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

580/JPR/2023 has following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on fact and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 8 lacs u/s 271D of IT Act by allegedly holding that assessee has received cash of Rs. 8 lacs against agreement to sale the land ... specific arguments were raised the same we feel are not required to be adjudicated. Thus, now the sole ground left is for levy of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. The brief facts of the case for levy of the penalty are that the assessee filed his return of income