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 any exemption after disclosing the relevant basic facts and under ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1961, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases, penalty should not be imposed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital 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

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.”

C) FAVOURABLE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SURJAN SINGH (1983) 3 ITD 438 (DEL) - In view of the aforesaid speech it is clear that the purposes of introducing the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) was to bring the gains of sale of urban land under taxation. There was no provisions of taxing the gains

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

capital gain and other sources. Therefore, this clearly suggests that the ld. AO was completely satisfied with manner and substantiation of the undisclosed income declared by it. Therefore, the ld. AO was incorrect in giving finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the undisclosed income. 8.4 It was further submitted that as already explained that the assessee made a surrender

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

6. penalty not leviable :- It is further submitted there are plethora of decisions in favour of the assessee holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAB cannot be levied when there is no variation of income between the assessed and returned income. The assessee filed return voluntarily before issue of any notice from the department. Further such return has been

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

C Capital Gain (A-B) 1431596/- D Less: Deduction u/s 54EC 50,00,000/- E Less: Deduction u/s 54F(1) 26,73,955/- 76,73,955/- (on the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs) F Capital Gain liable for Tax 66,41,252/- 6. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that Assessee

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) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed U/s 139(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed U/s 139(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed U/s 139(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed U/s 139(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed U/s 139(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed U/s 139(1

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

6 of UIT Report from the date of UIT Report. (PB:22) 1.4. The land was thereafter converted by the assessee, from being part of his Capital Asset into Stock in Trade. Gains on the sale of such stock in trade and prior to such sale i.e. gains till the date of conversion, was computed by the assessee in terms

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In this case, the ld Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for concealing of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income vide order dated 31/12/2009. Notice U/s 274 read with Section 271-272 of the Act was issued

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Capital Gain. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,42,490/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses

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 Gain. In response to notice under section 153A of the IT Act, the assessee furnished his return of income on 01.02.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 11,18,27,200/- which includes the income of Rs. 10,87,91,302/- admitted during search (including income of Rs. 10,69,91,302/- already declared in the return filed

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

Capital Gain. In response to notice under section 153A of the IT Act, the assessee furnished his return of income on 03.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 11,98,51,650/- which includes the income of Rs. 10,96,04,733/- admitted during search (including income of Rs. 10,78,04,733/- already declared in the return filed

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

Capital Gain for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,30,65,828/- which includes addition of Rs. 42,379/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,23,519/- on account