ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

income of Rs.3,94,67,426/-surrendered in survey operation u/s 133A conducted on 09.12.2014 at the business premises of the assessee situated at 1756, Telepada, SMS Highway, Jaipur. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A was completed at Rs.3,95,19,200/- vide order dated 24.12.2018 and penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of\nincome were initiated u/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

business premises of the assessee situated at 1756, Telepada, SMS Highway, Jaipur. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A was completed at Rs. 3,95,19,200/- vide order dated 24.12.2018 and penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 5 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. income were initiated u/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

income of Rs.3,94,67,426/-surrendered in survey\noperation u/s 133A conducted on 09.12.2014 at the business premises of the\nassessee situated at 1756, Telepada, SMS Highway, Jaipur. The assessment\nu/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A was completed at Rs.3,95,19,200/- vide order dated\n24.12.2018 and penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of\nincome were initiated u/s 271

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

business or strategic purpose. Supreme Court endorsement of 14A applicability. DCIT v. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum (P.)Ltd. Citation: [2018] 94 taxmann.com 434 (Mumbai - Trib.) Held: Non suo-motu disallowance u/s 14A when exempt income is earned constitutes furnishing of inaccurate particulars, inviting penalty under Section 271

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

271(1)(c) dt.07.10.2016, it is stated that it\nappears that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished\ninaccurate particulars of income. Thus penalty notice is issued without specifying\nwhether the charge is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. In subsequent notice dt. 14.03.2019 also, the assessee was\nnot made aware

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.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© for filing of inaccurate particular of income / concealment of income are initiated by way of issue of notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act. 4. Subject to above remarks total income of the assessee is recomputed as under:- Income as declared by the assessee as per original return. Income from business

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 whereas there\nwas no specific satisfaction in the assessment order of the Learned\nAssessing Officer that whether it was a case of furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income.\nThe assessee is a company engaged in hotel business

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

business done, as\nadmitted by the assessee, the expenditure claimed cannot be allowed and depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings

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

business done, as\nadmitted by the assessee, the expenditure claimed cannot be allowed and depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings

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

business done, as\nadmitted by the assessee, the expenditure claimed cannot be allowed and depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings

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

business done, as\nadmitted by the assessee, the expenditure claimed cannot be allowed and depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings

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

business done, as\nadmitted by the assessee, the expenditure claimed cannot be allowed and depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

business, capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 took place on 07-01-2016 in the case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153B (1) (b) of 1. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29-12-2017. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 153A

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

business premises as well as residence, cash at the residence of the assessee and jewellery at the residence of the assessee were found and seized. The assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) on 2nd September, 2015 declaring total income including the surrender of additional income. It is held that the show cause notice issued

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, 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. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

business and profession' as such, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) r/w Sec. 274 of the 1. T Act is imposable in this case quantum of which is worked out as under." Thus the penalty proceedings were initiated without specifying the limb i.e. whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of particulars of income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c) which provides for separate charge of “concealment of particulars of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”, there is a singular charge under section 271AAB i.e, of the existence of undisclosed income for the specified previous year which is found during the course of search in the case of the assessee. We entirely agree with

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the specific default committed by the appellant rendering the appellant liable to penalty under Income Tax Act. 4.2 Ld CIT(A) also erred in law in not quashing the patently illegal penalty order when the final show cause notice issued

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

business income. If the assesse claims so, the assesse is required\nto prove the same Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72\nITR 194 (SC)(01-08-1968)\nMaking book entries regarding the unexplained income / unexplained\ncash does not result into such income to be treated as explained