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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

275 of the Act. We have already held that the penalty is not automatic but the AO has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of section 274 of the Act. Thus the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act has to first decide that

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

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

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

275 read with section 271(1)(c) you are liable for penalty for concealment of particulars of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is concerned, you are hereby requested to appear and show cause why an order should not be made imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r/w 274 of the Act.” DCIT, Jaipur vs. Sh. Kamal Sethia, Jaipur

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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

275 of the Act. We have already held that the penalty is not automatic but the AO has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of section 274 of the Act. Thus the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act has to first decide that

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

275 of the Act. We have already held that the penalty is not automatic but the AO has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of section 274 of the Act. Thus the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act has to first decide that

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

275 of the Act. We have already held that the penalty is not automatic but the AO has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of section 274 of the Act. Thus the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act has to first decide that

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

275 of the Act. We have already held that the penalty is not automatic but the AO has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of section 274 of the Act. Thus the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act has to first decide that

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

275 of the Act. We have already held that the penalty is not automatic but the AO has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of section 274 of the Act. Thus the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act has to first decide that

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

275 of the Act. We have already held that the penalty is not automatic but the AO has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of section 274 of the Act. Thus the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act has to first decide that

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

275 of the Act. We have already held that the penalty is not automatic but the AO has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of section 274 of the Act. Thus the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act has to first decide that

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

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

house property, capital gain and income from other sources during the year under consideration. There was no business income to the assessee so assessee was not required to maintain the books of accounts as per provision of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it cannot be said that the income offered by the assessee falls under

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

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

house property, capital gain and income from other sources during the year under consideration. There was no business income to the assessee so assessee was not required to maintain the books of accounts as per provision of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it cannot be said that the income offered by the assessee falls under

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.”

275 of the Act. We have already held that the penalty is not automatic but the AO has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of section 274 of the Act. Thus the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act has to first decide that

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

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

house property, capital gain and income from other sources during the year under consideration. There was no business income to the assessee so assessee was not required to maintain the books of accounts as per provision of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it cannot be said that the income offered by the assessee falls under

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