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)

b) lays down in any case to which Explanation 3 applies, means the tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148. However in the present case the return of income was filed

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

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

b) lays down in any case to\nwhich Explanation 3 applies, means the tax on the total income assessed as\nreduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at\nsource and self assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148.\nHowever in the present case the return of income was filed

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have\nbeen passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO\nis clearly barred by limitation.\n\n6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of\nincome on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c) in absence of bona fide explanation. B. Cases Supporting Disallowance under Section 14A PCIT v. Caraf

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

B, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme\nJaipur\nबनाम The ACIT\nVs.\nCircle-6\nJaipur\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACD8548 H\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Harshit Agarwal, CA\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing\nउदघोषणा की तारीख/Date

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of deduction claimed by the\nassessee under section 35AD of the IT Act, 1961. The AO also initiated\npenalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961\nseparately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealed\nincome. Accordingly, notice under section 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act\nwas issued and served upon the assessee

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

disallowance made by the\nAssessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and\nafter providing due opportunity of hearing, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee\nhas filed inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore, the Assessing Officer levied\npenalty u/s 271(1)(d) of the Act.\nHeld : In the case the assessee was found to be guilty of furnishing

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow said payments under section 40A(3), assessee offered that its income might be computed by applying net profit rate of 8 per cent of gross receipts - Assessing Officer having accepted 8 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR assessee's offer, made addition in terms of section 44AD - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1

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

disallowed by the\nAssessing Officer. Accordingly, we hold that the explanation offered by the assessee\nduring penalty proceedings was acceptable which was wrongly rejected by the AO and\nthe Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and penalty was not imposable on the assessee in\nthis regard and we cancel the penalty orders. Thus, ground nos. 1

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

disallowed by the\nAssessing Officer. Accordingly, we hold that the explanation offered by the assessee\nduring penalty proceedings was acceptable which was wrongly rejected by the AO and\nthe Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and penalty was not imposable on the assessee in\nthis regard and we cancel the penalty orders. Thus, ground nos. 1

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

disallowance qua\nTDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal opined that it\nwas an inadvertent error on part of accountant Tribunal, thus, set aside\nimpugned penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no\nsubstantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved\nto be upheld - Whether Special leave

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

disallowance made by the\nAssessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings\nand after providing due opportunity of hearing, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee\nhas filed inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore, the Assessing Officer levied\npenalty u/s 271(1)(d) of the Act.\nHeld : In the case like the assessee, the Assessing Officer pointed out mistake

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)© : Concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 271A : Failed to keep, maintain, or retain books of accounts, documents etc. as required u/s 44AA. 271B : Failed to get the accounts audited or obtain audit report as required under section 44AB or furnish such report alongwith return under section 139(1) or in response to notice under

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

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

b) Notice u/s 274 Further in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271 of the I. Tax Act dated 30.09.2015 (copy enclosed). A.O. mentioned that: - "Concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." c) Notice dated 09.01.2018 Further in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271 (1

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

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

271(1)(c), the contentions of voluntary surrender to buy peace and avoid\nlitigation etc. are liable to be rejected and in the context of section 271AAB even\nthe question of considering such contentions does not arise\n(f) Manner of earning undisclosed income:-\nIn the submissions the appellant has not explained the manner of how the\nundisclosed income

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 AAC (1) and subsequent levy of penalty is ab initio bad in law and facts. On this aspect the Learned Assessing Officer has opined that the assessee having paid tax under section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 surmounts to the assessee having consented for addition under the provisions. This view of the Learned Assessing Officer is untenable

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

B” JAIPUR\nडा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI,\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 697/JP/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2011-12\nIncome Tax Officer, Jaipur बनाम Shakuntlam Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., 103-104, Geetanjali Tower, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Vs.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR