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

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

capital gain scheme nor purchased the new asset not only till the date of filing return u/s 139(1) but even the extended date u/s 139(4). As per ld. AR, this case the Assessment Year involved is Assessment Year 2013-14, therefore time available for investing in the purchase of new asset was up to 31.03.2015. The assessee invested

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

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

271(1)(c). 4.7 The same rational is applied with the minor modification- a penalty of 10% of undisclosed income disclosed during search for the specified previous year and returned in the income tax return after payment of due taxes in accordance with the provisions of section 271AAB(1)(a) of IT Act as invoked above. 4.8 Thus, the action

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

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

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. 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. 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, 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 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

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence the primary condition for treating such income as undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence the primary condition for treating such income as undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

capital account of the assessee which was also part of the record of the assessment year 2014-15. But the AO has accepted all these details without any adverse finding or comments while passing the assessment order under section 153A or the Act. The assessee has also produced sale bills/contract notes regarding sale of shares, copy of ledger account

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence the primary condition for treating such income as undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB