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

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

section 5 Sh. Mohamed Mohtram Farooqui vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu 132(4) is not applicable in a requisition u/s 132A. In any case assessee has explained in the “Notes to the return of income” that the money belongs to his four brothers and also to his brother in law who own 40 bigha of irrigated agricultural land but still

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), 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.

4) of section 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2018 : (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property

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.

4) of section 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2018 : (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition 38 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed

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

1. House 574405.00 2. House 2 438675.00 In this schedule the assessee had nowhere stated that these two houses were residential houses. It is not clear from where the AO gathered the information that these two houses were residential houses. There could be following possibilities in this case: a. Both the houses were residential houses. b. Both the houses were

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income-tax under section 139 of the Income-tax Act. Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be meant only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under sub-section (4

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of section 158BFA of the Act that are entitled to\nbe mandatory, the words may direct in sub section 2 there of intended\nto directory'. In other words, while payment of interest is mandatory\nlevy of penalty is discretionary.\n9. Penalty u/s 271AAB attracts on undisclosed income but not on\nadmission made by the assessee u/s 132(4

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

sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee\nclaimed refund

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

sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee\nclaimed refund

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

sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee\nclaimed refund

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

sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee\nclaimed refund

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

sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee\nclaimed refund

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

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.

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 4,95,189/- imposed by the assessing officer u/s 271AAB of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in confirming the said penalty of Rs. 4,95,189/- u/s 271AAB of the Act, holding

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

1) of the IT Act?” The said question has been answered by the Hon’ble Court in the following words: - “As is clear from Sub Section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in Section

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property, showing income under the head Profit and Gains from Business and Profession (covered under section 44AD) and Income from Other Sources. Since, assessee was not aware of the technical provisions of turnover etc. related to shares and securities business and since he also suffered loss, same was not declared in return of income. The case of the assessee

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

properties. According to the ld. Pr.CIT, as per the proviso (ii) of Section 54F(1) of the Act, no deduction is allowable to the assessee if he purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset. Consequently, after issuing show cause notice and seeking reply