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

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

house properties. Hence the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54F. When the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54F, long term capital gain arises from the sale of residential plot was to be charged accordingly. 6 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI The omission has resulted in incorrect computation of long-term capital gain

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 90,86,782/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 2,72,60,347/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 91,50,841/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 2,74,52,522/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,08,84,208/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 3,26,52,624/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,09,65,285/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 3,28,95,855/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 91,26,677/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 2,73,80,031/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Kota. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,10,57,747/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 3,31,73,241/- imposed

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

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

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

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

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

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

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

SHRI NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

251 ITR 9 (SC) Larger Bench. In this case it has been held in categorical terms that surrender made by the assessee upon persistent queries of AO in a search matter should be treated as bona fide surrender. It is submitted that so far as the case of the present assessee is concerned the facts are on better footage

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property- 1,50,000/- Total 5,06,678/- 2.9.4 First appeal is an extension of assessment proceedings. The powers of CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of AO. In this view of the scheme of the law even verification of facts at CIT(A) level should not obstruct admission of additional claim. When CIT(A) is empowered

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating

BABU LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house No. 239 registered documents seized by the Income Tax Department during the course of search on Shri Raju Sharma. During the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant submitted confirmation letters and affidavits of the persons from whom the assessee borrowed the said amounts by account payee cheques/inter banking transfer. The said documents explained the sources of deposits made