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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

undisclosed income of Rs. 9,08,67,826/- which was admitted during the search. For the assessment year 2016-17, he assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the IT Act on 22.07.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 4,50,56,420/- which includes surrendered income of Rs. 3,85,39,399/- on account of Long

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

undisclosed income of Rs. 9,15,08,409/- which was admitted during the search. For the assessment year 2016-17, he assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the IT Act on 18.07.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 4,28,99,930/- which includes surrendered income of Rs. 3,82,78,662/- on account of Long

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

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

undisclosed income of Rs. 1,77,039/- disclosed in the income tax return by the assessee. As held by the Coordinate Bench (supra), the uncertain charge at the time of initiation of penalty has been made good and substituted with a conclusive default at the time of passing the penalty order and that in such a case, no fault

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income of Rs. 7,22,00,000/-. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1)(b) of the Act on 28.03.2016 at a total income of Rs. 12,96,93,610/- by making an addition of Rs. 35,42,067/- on account of 3 Shri Ritesh Agarwal, Jaipur. disallowance

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income\" admitted during the course of\nsearch vide penalty show cause notice dated 30-03-2016 and 07-09-2018 which\nwere duly served upon the assessee. It is noted from the records that in the course\nof search, the assessee surrendered an income of Rs.10,01,13,351/- which he\nadmitted as his additional business income for current

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.”

undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,60,000/-. The AO has completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the IT Act on 23rd March, 2016 on the total income of Rs. 1,14,88,220/-. The AO accepted the returned income except a disallowance

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

income except making a 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

disallowance of expenses. Thus, there is no iota of evidence that surrendered income was undisclosed income. The reliance is placed

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

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

undisclosed income within meaning of section 271AAB of the IT\nAct, 1961.\n2.\nThat without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above the Id. CIT(A) is wrong,\nunjust and has erred in law in confirming finding recorded by the Id. AO that\nappellant has allegedly not been able to substantiate manner in which additional\nincome of Rs.74

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)

undisclosed income which included Rs. 10 crores as the income of the current AY. However, the assessee company has claimed certain expenses against this income also with the result that the return income has been shown to be Rs. 19,58,84,970/- which is less than Rs. 19.95 crores. Therefore, an adhoc disallowance

SMT. PRIYANKA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Appeal is allowed

undisclosed income attracting penalty under s.271AAB” 2.3Arun Kala vs. DCIT (2019) 33 NYPTTJ 756 (JP), held as under: “Penalty under s. 271AAB—Validity—Notice issued without application of mind— Caption of notice not mentioning correct section for levy of penalty, default for which show-cause notice was issued not specified but the pre-typed notice 13 Smt. Priyanka Agarwal

M/S SARAF EXPORT PALACE,CHURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is allowed

undisclosed income attracting penalty under s.271AAB” 2.3Arun Kala vs. DCIT (2019) 33 NYPTTJ 756 (JP), held as under: “Penalty under s. 271AAB—Validity—Notice issued without application of mind— Caption of notice not mentioning correct section for levy of penalty, default for which show-cause notice was issued not specified but the pre-typed notice 13 Smt. Priyanka Agarwal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

undisclosed income. Thus, while in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

undisclosed income offered to tax. The Assessing Officer disallowed claim of assessee on the ground that these expenses are already

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

undisclosed income offered to tax. The Assessing Officer disallowed claim of assessee on the ground that these expenses are already

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

undisclosed income offered to tax. The Assessing Officer disallowed claim of assessee on the ground that these expenses are already