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, did not disclose the profits arising on its sale. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS which was finalized u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. 1961 determining total income Rs. 1,14,75,790/- on 05.12.2016 An addition of Rs 1,14,75,791/-was made on account of LTCG on sale of the impugned

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

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

b),271(1)(c) and 271F is warranted and is completely illegal and anti-vires the provisions of the law for which it was created. Addition in income u/s section 69A and Penal provisions needs due attention and needs to be exercised with great caution. Hence no such action is tenable in the eyes of law in view

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

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

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

B) to section 271 of the Act should be clear and without any ambiguity. (o) If the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction or has not issued any direction to initiate penalty proceedings, in appeal, if the appellate authority records satisfaction, then the penalty proceedings have to be initiated by the appellate authority and not the assessing authority

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gain tax, but that cannot be a case\nof penalty under s.271(1)(c). If it has claimed any exemption after\ndisclosing the relevant basic facts and under the ignorance of the\nprovision of the Act, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases,\npenalty should not be imposed. In such cases rather it is the duty

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered to pay the differential amount of the\ncapital gain which was offered vide letter dated 13.06.2014. Pursuant

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered to pay the differential amount of the\ncapital gain which was offered vide letter dated 13.06.2014. Pursuant

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered to pay the differential amount of the\ncapital gain which was offered vide letter dated 13.06.2014. Pursuant

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered to pay the differential amount of the\ncapital gain which was offered vide letter dated 13.06.2014. Pursuant

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered to pay the differential amount of the\ncapital gain which was offered vide letter dated 13.06.2014. Pursuant

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain then none of the conditions as prescribed under clause (a) & (b) are satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee in the mischief of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain then none of the conditions as prescribed under clause (a) & (b) are satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee in the mischief of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain then none of the conditions as prescribed under clause (a) & (b) are satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee in the mischief of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain then none of the conditions as prescribed under clause (a) & (b) are satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee in the mischief of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain then none of the conditions as prescribed under clause (a) & (b) are satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee in the mischief of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain then none of the conditions as prescribed under clause (a) & (b) are satisfied so as to bring the case of the assessee in the mischief of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1

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