ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS on account of non- deposit of same with Government, Tribunal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS on account of non- deposit of same with Government, Tribunal

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain of ₹27,87,561/-was added to the assessee's\nincome from other sources and taxed at 30% under Section 115BBE.\nii.\niii. Additionally, it was determined that an 6% commission (₹1,85,530/-\ncalculated at a reasonable 6% rate on the sale) is to be treated as\nundisclosed expenditure under Section 69C.\niv. Separate penalty proceedings under Section

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

capital gains tax. but that cannot be a case of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 If it has claimed

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

271(1)(c) is not automatic. He submitted that there is no positive material to demonstrate that the assessee has made willful attempt to conceal the income and furnish the inaccurate particular of income. He submitted that there must be an independent finding to this effect as held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Durga

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act, the appellant, being a layperson with limited financial literacy and no prior knowledge of tax laws, genuinely believed that the transaction was entirely tax-exempt. Accordingly, he did not file an ITR for the said year, under the bona fide belief that no tax liability arose from the transaction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee when the long term capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee when the long term capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee when the long term capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI AJAY AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee when the long term capital gain

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee when the long term capital gain

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee when the long term capital gain

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

capital gain of Rs.6,19,338 and adjusted the BF loss of Rs.3,18,558 from said LTCG in return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act in comparison to return filed u/s 139 (1) and therefore invoking expl. 1 of section 271

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 10(38). Further, ld.AO had referred some order of SEBI having no direct reference of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceeding, opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses of the department i.e. the above named two persons whose statements were solely relied upon to conclude that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries, was demanded but the same

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby enclosing working and contract note for your reference. 2. you are not right in taking the Turnover for Rs. 1, 34, 92,964/-, however out of it Rs. 86, 05,364/- a LTCG turnover. Its profit is Rs. 83, 25,364/- (Rs. 86, 05,364/-minus Rs. 2, 80,000/-). Rest

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain of Rs.15,72,409/- and not on entire value of transactions i.e. 86,31,724/-. Appellant prays that shares were purchased Online, through banking channels and were duly recorded in books of accounts, thus source of the same was explained and addition so made is absolutely unwarranted and deserves to be deleted. 3.1 That, Ld.CIT(A) has further erred

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

section 10(38). Further, ld.AO had referred some order of SEBI having no direct reference of the assessee. During eh course of assessment proceeding, opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses of the department i.e. the above named two SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR persons whose statements were solely relied upon to conclude that the assessee