KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

house was ready for occupation, if the same is not kept vacant intentionally by the assessee then vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) would be available to the assessee. The revenue would argue that the benefit of section 23(1)(c) is available only when the property

SHRI MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

house property”/ “income from other sources”. All these facts shows that the cash of Rs. 5,92,340/- offered in the return is just to avoid the litigation which is neither a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 13. It was further submitted that otherwise also, much importance cannot be attached to the manner in which

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

house property and other sources. The advances have been given for purchasing of land which clearly suggests that the assessee was into this business which he has also explained in response to question no.3. 8.3 It was further submitted that it is important to note that the income declared by the assessee has been accepted

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

house property at Rs. 21,17,433/-. The ld Assessing Officer has not considered the provisions of section 23(1)(c

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

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

23,40,919/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). As per ld. CIT(A), the prerequisite for invoking of explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) is that the assessee should be found to be owner of any money, bullion etc. found

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

23 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. sources, apart from the surrendered income of Rs. 3,95,30,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the assesee was not required to maintain regular books of account as per section 44AA of the Act. The AO and ld. CIT (A) have proceeded on the premises that the penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

house was ready for occupation, if the same is not kept vacant intentionally by the assessee then vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) would be available to the assessee. The revenue would argue that the benefit of section 23(1)(c) is available only when the property

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

house was ready for occupation, if the same is not kept vacant intentionally by the assessee then vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) would be available to the assessee. The revenue would argue that the benefit of section 23(1)(c) is available only when the property

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

house was ready for occupation, if the same is not kept vacant intentionally by the assessee then vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) would be available to the assessee. The revenue would argue that the benefit of section 23(1)(c) is available only when the property

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

23) is as under:- “Therefore, I impose a penalty of equal to 100% o tax sought to be evaded on account of the above facts of the assessee of Rs. 34,05,436/- i.e. 100% tax evaded. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed on the concealed income as per working given below. CIT(A) on penalty In Para

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

23 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. (c) a sum which shall not be less than thirty per cent but which shall not exceed ninety per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered by the provisions of clauses (a) and (b). (2) No penalty under the provisions

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property, business and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 05.02.2015 in case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota and the assessee was part of the said Group. During the course of search proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein he has declared undisclosed income

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

23 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. which shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax so leviable in respect of the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC: Provided that no order imposing penalty shall be made

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Housing & Urban Development Authority ( HIMUDA ) 157 taxmann.com 598 (Himachal Pradesh) wherein the High Court has held as under : 2.(iv) The assessee approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by filing three separate appeals for the assessment years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010. The assessee claimed that filing of its return was delayed due to delay

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

23 Shri Ritesh Agarwal, Jaipur. (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and income from other sources besides profit from partnership firm. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the I.T. Act was carried out on 15th October, 2014 in case of Surana group, Jaipur in which the case of assessee was also covered. In the course of search and seizure action, certain documents were found