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

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

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: -

b) Disallowance of brought forward long term capital loss Against the long term capital gain Rs.3,18,558/- The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur who deleted addition of Rs.5,95,91,797/-. After appeal effect the only addition remain sustained is Rs.3,15,558/- on account of disallowing

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

Section 2(14). As Rural Agricultural Land is not considered as a Capital\nAsset – therefore Tax won't be levied on sale of Rural Agricultural Land as it is only levied\non sale of a Capital Asset.\nThat the Ld. ITO, Bharatpur has not verified the basic details of land sold, nor enquiry is made\nfrom Registry Authority / Gram Panchayat

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

B) of Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c), the penalty is leviable if the appellant is not able to substantiate the explanation offered by him and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him. The assessment

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

b) of the Act and reject the contention of the appellant. Accordingly, Ground No.2 & 3 raised by the appellant are dismissed. Finding of ld. CIT(A) for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act 4. Decision:- I have carefully examined the penalty order passed by the AO, and other facts of the case available on record. 4.1. The appellant

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

b) of the Act and reject the contention of the appellant. Accordingly, Ground No.2 & 3 raised by the appellant are dismissed. Finding of ld. CIT(A) for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act 4. Decision:- I have carefully examined the penalty order passed by the AO, and other facts of the case available on record. 4.1. The appellant

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

b) of the Act and reject the contention of the appellant. Accordingly, Ground No.2 & 3 raised by the appellant are dismissed. Finding of ld. CIT(A) for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act 4. Decision:- I have carefully examined the penalty order passed by the AO, and other facts of the case available on record. 4.1. The appellant

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

271, if any person fails to keep and maintain any such books of account and other documents as required by section 44AA or the rules made thereunder, in respect of any previous year or to retain such books of account and other documents for the period specified in the said rules, the [Assessing] Officer or the [Commissioner (Appeals)] may direct

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

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

271(1)(b)\nand 271F dt. 27.05.2019 was issued at the registered office of the assessee\ncompany (APB-1). Thus the admission of additional evidence u/r 46A of Income\nTax Rules, 1962 is within the prescribed law and same is also rightly confirmed\nby the Id. CIT(A) by accepting the evidence so produced.\nAt the outset, it is also