NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

section 271 would not satisfy the requirement of law. The assessee should know the ground which he has to meet specifically, otherwise, the principle of natural justice is offended on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Tej Bhan Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory

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

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 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

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 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

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 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property he did not offer the capital gains for tax-Later,\nhe annexed a note to the revised return stating that no tax is payable on\nthe capital gain as it is long-term capital gain and he has purchased\nanother property within 6 months out of the sale consideration—\nAssessee was acting on the wrong advice

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

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

house property, remuneration and interest from these firms and interest from bank during this year totaling to Rs. 23,74,227/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed his revised return of income u/s 139(5) on 19.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 3,85,78,660/- which includes undisclosed income of Rs. 3,63,07,500/- which has been accepted

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property which has been found during the course of search. As per the definition of undisclosed income u/s 271AAB, the undisclosed investment in purchase of land cannot be stated to be income which is represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing. Whether it can then be said that such undisclosed investment represents 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

house. Both, such undisclosed\nincome and such undisclosed asset/house construction, are the undisclosed\nincome of the appellant as per the section 271AAB of the Act.\nReliance is also placed up on the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Benchs-B,\nJaipur order in the case of Shri Raja Ram Maheshwari Vs. DCIT Central Circle-3,\nJaipur in ITA No. 992/JP/2017

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

271(1)(c). 4.7 The same rational is applied with the minor modification- a penalty of 10% of undisclosed income disclosed during search for the specified previous year and returned in the income tax return after payment of due taxes in accordance with the provisions of section 271AAB(1)(a) of IT Act as invoked above. 4.8 Thus, the action

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.”

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

KAUSHLENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property in the name of his wife namely, Smt. Garima Singh, within the prescribed time limit as prescribed under the provisions of section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Income tax Act. Consequently, no capital gain was chargeable under the head Long term capital gain on sale of above immovable property. Despite

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

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

GANESH CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Since, the deduction is allowable for construction of the house property during the period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the capital asset, therefore, the investment made in construction of the house after the date of transfer i.e. 30.05.2012 has been claimed by the assessee and the same

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

property, income from business and profession and interest from partnership firm. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s. Mundra & Jain Marble, 16, Jhalawar Road, Kota on 13-08-2013. During the course of search and seizure action, certain loose papers were found and seized marked as Annexure