DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

disallowance made u/s 10(38) and the resultant\nadditions made u/s 68 and 69C are without jurisdiction.\n\nIn the assessment order, with respect to the first addition, the learned AO has\nreferred to the following material in support of the conclusion drawn regarding the\naddition made in the assessment order: (i) Report of Compliance Officer, Bombay\nStock Exchange, Mumbai

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the AssessingOfficer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose ofpenalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the AssessingOfficer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose ofpenalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income

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

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\n8.\nWe have heard both the parties and perused the materials available\non record. Vide Ground no 1 & 2 the assessee challenges the levy of\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/-. The brief facts related to the levy of this penalty is\nthat the assessee there was an action of search and seizure action

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

153 A viz-a-viz the assessed income.However, the facts\nof the present case are on much stronger footing because the assessee admitted\nadditional income before the closing of previous year itself and included in the ROI\nfiled u/s 139(1) of the Act.\n7.2\nFurther, behind issuing a notice u/s 153A, the legislative intent is, to give a\nsecond

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowance of\nRs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and\nthe same be deleted.\n7.\nThe Id. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written\nsubmission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue\nthat the case was reopened by ITO, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance and deleting the said addition of Rs.63,95,407. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of making addition of Rs. 4,24,14,300 u/s 69. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

153 of the IT Act, 1961.\"\n11. Aggrieved by the second withdrawal of approval order of the Ld. CIT\n(Exemption), Jaipur the assessee preferred the present appeal before us on the\ngrounds mentioned hereinabove.\n12. All the grounds raised by the assessee are inter-related and inter-connected\nand relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

VARSHA MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ADIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

153/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO Rs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and the same be deleted. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue that the case was reopened

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

153 (Karnataka) [13-12-2012])\nThe object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations\nindicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss\nof revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Wilful concealment\nis not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

disallowances of Rs. 25,200/-and Rs. 8,52,531/-. Notably, no variation has been made in the amount of declared LTCG. The appellant has contended that the only allegation of the undisclosed income is the alleged excessive claim of Cost of Acquisition (COA) and consequently Indexed Cost of Acquisition (ICOA) as stated above, however, the AO completely failed

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: 3 Thus, in view of the above, it is submitted that if no scrutiny assessment

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: 3 Thus, in view of the above, it is submitted that if no scrutiny assessment

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: 3 Thus, in view of the above, it is submitted that if no scrutiny assessment

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

disallowed and added back to the total\nincome of the assessee.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant\nfinding of the Id. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:\n4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may specified in the notice

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income tax is the charge of income tax itself