PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of expenses\non account of personal element/unverifiable expenses. The A.O. simultaneously\ninitiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The assessee filed his\nexplanation to the said notice which was rejected by A.O. and vide impugned\npenalty order dated levied a penalty of Rs.1,00,11,335/- on assessee firm. The\npresent appeal is against said penalty imposed

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)

disallowance u/s 14A. Thereafter on the last page of the assessment order, it is mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act have been initiated separately. It is worthwhile to mention that along with the assessment order, notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dt. 31.12.2025 (PB 17) is issued. The details of the relevant narration

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

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

disallowances and additions. The penalty proceeding\nu/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 has been initiated on the ground that assessee\nduring the course of search in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) offered a sum of\nRs.49,50,000/- on account of investment in construction of house and\nRs.20,28,903/- on account of excess value of stock found

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

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

disallowance u/s 14A.\n\nThereafter on the last page of the assessment order, it is mentioned that penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act have been initiated separately. It is\nworthwhile to mention that along with the assessment order, notice u/s 274 r.w.s\n271(1)(c) dt. 31.12.2025 (PB 17) is issued. The details of the relevant

AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

Section 14A is not justified.” The SLP filed against the said judgment has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Ahmedabad V. Sintex Industries Ltd (2018) 93 taxmann.com 24 (SC). (vii) Emtici Engineering Ltd. Versus ACIT (OSD). Anand Circle, Anand 2016 (3) TMI 186 - ITAT Ahmedabad. “It was noted from records

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.

274. Read with Section 271 of the IT Act, 1961. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2012-13. It appears to me that you have: - Read With Section 271(1)(c) concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income." Therefore, there is no specific charge by the Assessing officer. Further

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)

274 271(1)(b) : Failed to comply with a notice under section 142(1) or Section 143(2) or failed to comply with a direction, under section 142(2A).  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

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

274. Read with Section 271 of the IT Act, 1961.\nWhereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2012-\n13. It appears to me that you have: - Read With Section\n271(1)(c) concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of\nincome.\"\nTherefore, there is no specific charge by the Assessing officer. Further

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

274. Read with Section 271 of the IT Act, 1961.\nWhereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2012-\n13. It appears to me that you have: -\nRead With Section\n271(1)(c) concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of\nincome.\"\nTherefore, there is no specific charge by the Assessing officer. Further

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 12.89% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.53,18,801/=. Thus your

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 12.89% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.53,18,801/=. Thus your

ACIT, NCRB BUILDING JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the

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

disallowance of Rs. 36,15,030/- of expenses claimed by the assessee company is being made to assess the total income of the assessee company at Rs. 19,95,00,000/-.” Accordingly, the A.O. made an addition of Rs. 36,15,030/- in the declared income of Rs. 19,58,84,970/- and assessed the assessee company

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." Therefore, as per limb (B) of Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c), the penalty is leviable if the appellant

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

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

disallowance of claim of interest on TDS. During the course of assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the I.T. Act were initiated and accordingly Show cause Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 270A of the I.T. Act was issued on 26.11.2029 for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. Further show cause notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 270A was issued

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

disallowance of claim of interest on TDS. During the course of assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the I.T. Act were initiated and accordingly Show cause Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 270A of the I.T. Act was issued on 26.11.2029 for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. Further show cause notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 270A was issued

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance sustained by ld. CIT(A), M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. assessee has preferred present appeal, whereas department has preferred appeal in respect of relief allowed by ld.CIT(A). 10. The AO assessed the finding that theassessee is indulged in bogus purchasing from M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises