SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of certain expenses, the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the notices dated 29th February, 2016 and 09.08.2016. The AO initially levied the penalty under section 271AAB vide order dated 30.08.2016 @ 10% of the undisclosed income total amounting

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of certain expenses, the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the notices dated 29th February, 2016 and 09.08.2016. The AO initially levied the penalty under section 271AAB vide order dated 30.08.2016 @ 10% of the undisclosed income total amounting

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowance of Rs. 9400/- of deduction claimed under section 80C of the Act. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB by issuing show cause notice dated 23rd March, 2016 when the assessment order was passed and further a notice dated 12.08.2016 was also issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act. In reply

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 27th June, 2018 has 3 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty 3 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. order dated 27st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. The assessee is an individual and derived income from salary, capital gain and other sources. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the I.T. Act on the members of Okay plus-JKD Group on 4th September, 2013. During the course of search, certain incriminating material was found and seized containing the transactions of advances given

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

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred

M/S SILVER AND ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of Rs. 12,384/- on account of delay in deposition of ESI & PF. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB were initiated by issuance of notice on 23.12.2016. Subsequently, penalty was imposed u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act at the rate of 10% amounting to Rs. 2,65,05,090/- vide order dated 24.4.2017. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

disallowance of benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act questions all receipts of the assessee association and addition is made on net surplus amount after allowing the expenditure allowable. Hence, the receipts as per 26AS and services as per service tax return were considered while making addition. The case of the association has to be viewed from

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.

2) of the Act as well as the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus the AO has issued show cause notice under section 274 Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. read with section 271 of the IT Act for various defaults without striking off the irrelevant part of the said notice. Thus

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.

2) of the Act as well as the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus the AO has issued show cause notice under section 274 Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. read with section 271 of the IT Act for various defaults without striking off the irrelevant part of the said notice. Thus

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.

2) of the Act as well as the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus the AO has issued show cause notice under section 274 Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. read with section 271 of the IT Act for various defaults without striking off the irrelevant part of the said notice. Thus

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2 Ultratech Cement vs. Addl.CIT 81 taxmann.com 74 (Bombay) (2017) 3 CIT vs. G.S. Rice Mills 136 ITR 761 (1982) (Allahabad High Court) 4. Intex Link Petroleum Ltd. vs. DCIT 83 TTJ 274 (Allah ITAT) (2004). 13. Further, the investment in the house property was made in F.Y. 2013-14 which was beyond time limit of three years

SHRI KAMAL SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

274 read with section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act specifying the exact clause of Sec. 271AAB under which penalty was to be levied.” 3. The assessee is an individual and partner in the firms M/s Sethia Real Estates and M/s Manglam Vardhman Developers LLP. The assessee is also Director in M/s Richwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. These firms and companies

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

274 read with section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act specifying the exact clause of Sec. 271AAB under which penalty was to be levied.” 3. The assessee is an individual and partner in the firms M/s Sethia Real Estates and M/s Manglam Vardhman Developers LLP. The assessee is also Director in M/s Richwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. These firms and companies

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act stating that the Appellant have deposited the amount under Capital Gains Scheme after the due date of filing return of income and the same was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that while making such addition, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have not appreciated

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

274 ITR 443 (P&H) An Opportunity which is earlier granted cannot justify lack of reasonable opportunity during last occasion. 18. Dwijendra Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs Superintendent of Taxes (1990) 78 STC 593 (Gau) Opportunity must be real and effective : The opportunity given to the assessee to be heard must be real and reasonable. If an assessee, who is asked