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)

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS on account of non- deposit of same with Government, Tribunal

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

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

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS on account of non- deposit of same with Government, Tribunal

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 represent concealment\nof income and thus imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n\n2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which\nlimb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s\n274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty

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 represent concealment of income and thus imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which limb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s 274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty proceedings

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 u/s 80IB by\nholding that assessee had made wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB-\nAO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on ground of furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income by assessee- CIT(A) deleted penalty imposed\nby AO u/s 271(1)(c)—Held, AO passed order under section 271(1)(c

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 6(1)(c) of the Act. Having considered thus, the\nassessee as resident Id. AO considered Salary income of the assessee\nearned from M/s Saket Gems (HK) Ltd., and as such same income was\nadded to the total income of the assessee for A.Y 2018-19.\nLd. CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the Id. AO on the very

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6.\nWe have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material\navailable on the record. In this case, the ld Assessing Officer initiated penalty\nproceedings for concealing of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income vide order dated 31/12/2009. Notice U/s 274 read with Section 271-\n272 of the Act was issued

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

section 13\n(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) and was thus not entitled to any benefits as provided u/s 11\nof the Act.\n7. It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are\nsimilar to those in the immediately preceding year. As such, there is no case for\nallowing benefit of section

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

6. In view of above stated facts and legal position, the assessee under consideration is, clearly liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed upon him as per following computation:- Total undisclosed/concealed income liable to penalty Rs. 1,34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty

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

6. In view of above stated facts and legal position, the assessee under consideration is, clearly liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed upon him as per following computation:- Total undisclosed/concealed income liable to penalty Rs. 1,34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

disallowed the Freight Expenses of Rs. 1,44,13,853/- [30% of 4,80,46,176/-] by wrongly invoking the Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. TDS return was filed delayed, due to which, the AO invoked the Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act. He further submitted that Section 194C(6) provides

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

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction claimed tinder 83[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", yl the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

6. Section 143(1)(a)(iii) i. It is submitted that u/s 143(1)(a)(iii), only disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under Sub-Section (1) of Section 139 can be made. 7. Section 143(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

6: That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any\nof the above grounds of appeal or withdraw any of them.\n7.1 The appellant has not added and altered any of the above mentioned ground\nof appeal. Accordingly such mention by the appellant in its ground is treated as\ngeneral in nature, not needing any specific