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

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

D-GOA.\n3.3 The search action took place at a later point of time on 28.07.2016. Notably and admittedly again in the ROI filed u/s 153A on 08.04.2017, same income of Rs.3.94Cr. was declared.\n3.4 There was no variation was made so far as the additional income of Rs.3.95Cr. declared by the assessee is concerned. Kindly refer

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)

D-GOA. 3.3 The search action took place at a later point of time on 28.07.2016. Notably and admittedly again in the ROI filed u/s 153A on 08.04.2017, same income of Rs. 3.94Cr. was declared. 3.4 There was no variation was made so far as the additional income of Rs. 3.95Cr. declared by the assessee is concerned. Kindly

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)

271(1)(c) dt.07.10.2016, it is stated that it appears that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Thus penalty notice is issued without specifying whether the charge is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In subsequent notice dt. 14.03.2019 also, the assessee was not made aware

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

disallowance of certain expenses, since this issue has been set aside by the Tribunal to the record of the AO, therefore the addition itself is no more in existence and consequently the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in respect of such addition would not survive. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO against the additions made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

disallowance of certain expenses, since this issue has been set aside by the Tribunal to the record of the AO, therefore the addition itself is no more in existence and consequently the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in respect of such addition would not survive. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO against the additions made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

disallowance of certain expenses, since this issue has been set aside by the Tribunal to the record of the AO, therefore the addition itself is no more in existence and consequently the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in respect of such addition would not survive. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO against the additions made

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 730 & 731/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 cuke Vaibhav Global Ltd. The ACIT, Vs. (Earlier known as Vaibhav Gems Ltd.) Circle-5, K-6-B Fateh

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 730 & 731/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 cuke Vaibhav Global Ltd. The ACIT, Vs. (Earlier known as Vaibhav Gems Ltd.) Circle-5, K-6-B Fateh

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

disallowance if the overall sense gathered from the order is that a further prognosis is called for. It would be sufficient compliance with the law that there is a prima facie evidence for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Even after this section, the Assessing Officer has to satisfy the particular limb of initiation

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

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

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.

disallowance of 15% of purchases but ordered to assess the income of assessee on average gross profit declared and admitted by the A.O.. Thus, in this way, the purchases which was held unverifiable cannot be held to be bogus and the addition on the basis of estimation do not fall within the purview of Section 271 (1

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of certain expenses. The ld AO levied penalty of Rs. 57,33,335/- under clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) @ 10% of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- being income surrendered in search as recorded in statement u/s 132(4) and of Rs. 35,408/- under sub clause (b) of section 271AAB (1) of Act @ 20% of Rs. 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

d) Issue of addition not done under section 69 of the Act.-\nThe appellant has contended that the Ld AO has not determined it as income\nfrom other sources u/s 69 of Income Tax Act in the assessment but accepted as\nincome of current year. Therefore merely on the basis of surrender made in the\nsearch statement, this cannot

M/S SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable to the assessee's case and merely on account of disallowance of certain claim, penalty cannot be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the proposition of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find that

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