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

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage

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

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage

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

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage

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

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage

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

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

271 (1) (c) cannot be imposed”.\nIn view of above facts of the case penalty order is not sustainable in law and\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/- imposed by Ld. A.O. being wrong and bad in law which\ndeserves to be deleted.\nGround No. (3)\nThat the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable and therefore the penalty levied by the AO\nis not as per law. Reliance in this connection is based on the following cases-\nDilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT & Anr.(2007) 291 ITR 519(SC)\nPenalty under s. 271(1)(c) is not automatic. Only in the event the factors\nenumerated

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation aggregating to Rs. 22,77,188/- on the above assets. Had the case has not been scrutinized u/s 143(3) proceedings an amount of Rs. 22,77.188/- would have been escaped from taxation. 3.1.1. The position of law regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)c) has undergone a substantial change after the insertion of Explanation (1

RAM KISHORE MEENA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD, MORAK, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 350/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 The ACIT, cuke Mangalam Cement Limited Circle-2, Vs. Aditya Nagar Morak, Aditya

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 271(1)(c) to levy the penalty and thereby the order of levying the penalty is against the principles of natural justice. However, at the time of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed this technical ground raised ground no. 1 to 4 and he had decided to argue the appeal on merits of the case

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 271(1)(c) to levy the penalty and thereby the order of levying the penalty is against the principles of natural justice. However, at the time of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed this technical ground raised ground no. 1 to 4 and he had decided to argue the appeal on merits of the case

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 271(1)(c) to levy the penalty and thereby the order of levying the penalty is against the principles of natural justice. However, at the time of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed this technical ground raised ground no. 1 to 4 and he had decided to argue the appeal on merits of the case

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) Notice u/s 274 Furthur in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16-02-2015 (copy enclosed) A.O. issued printed notice by putting against • have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) initiate for undisclosed income of the specified year

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

b) of Explanation 2, reasons for belief of escapement of income is not as per law considering following facts:  Though reference about receipt of information from investigation wing has been given, no reference has been provided about the nature of information, nature of investigation carried on by the investigation wing and the basis of the allegation, which leads to conclusion

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VKI, JAIPUR

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

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

b) of Form 3CD while processing the return of income and added the same to Total Income. That with regard to additional ground, the appellant has requested to admit the additional ground of appeal during the course of hearing. In this regard as per the provision contained in section 250(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Commissioner

DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, V K I JAIPUR

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

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

b) of Form 3CD while processing the return of income and added the same to Total Income. That with regard to additional ground, the appellant has requested to admit the additional ground of appeal during the course of hearing. In this regard as per the provision contained in section 250(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Commissioner

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTIRES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

271 ITR 0132 (Delhi); Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2008] 305 ITR 0103 (Supreme Court). In the present case the addition had been made by way of adjustments, vide intimations issued u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act on dt. 17.10.2019 However, at that point of time it is undisputed fact on record that this

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTRIES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

271 ITR 0132 (Delhi); Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2008] 305 ITR 0103 (Supreme Court). In the present case the addition had been made by way of adjustments, vide intimations issued u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act on dt. 17.10.2019 However, at that point of time it is undisputed fact on record that this