AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/- without claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/-, without claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

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

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

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

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

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

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

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

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

house property and income from other sources. All other facts recorded are identical and arising from the same search and seizure action dated 26th February, 2014. The only difference is quantum of undisclosed income and consequently the penalty levied under section 271AAB of the Act. The facts, arguments of both parties and findings recorded by the Tribunal in the case

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/- without claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

house property on April 26, 1991 The Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and taxed this amount, ie difference of Rs. 1,40,000 as short-term capital gain. No appeal was preferred Therefore, that addition had become final. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

ANUJ MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

house property and other sources. A search under section 132 was conducted in the case of the assessee on 30th October, 2014 wherein the assessee has disclosed and surrendered an income of Rs. 7,01,00,000/-. In the return of income filed by the assessee on 30th September, 2015 total income of Rs. 7,88,48,920/- was declared

SHRI KRISHNA YADAV,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

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.”

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

SHRI RAVI MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

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

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

property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it\nis open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further\nburden lies on the revenue to show that that income is from any particular source,\nvide Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72\nITR 194 (SC).\nHere

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. VIJAY KUMAR SAINI, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House Property, Business or profession and income from other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of assessee in connection with search and seizure action in Saini-Gupta- Malpani-Somani Group of Ajmer on 13.02.2020. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed his original Return

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

150, which intends to lift embargo of period of limitation under section 149 to enable the authorities to reopen assessments not only on the basis of orders passed in proceedings under the Act but also on order of a Court in any 45 ITA No. 94 & CO. No. 22/JPR/2025 Smt. Kamla Prabha L/h Late Sh. Gopal Lal Ji Goswami proceedings