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: -

capital gain at Rs.6,19,338/- has been disclosed, Accordingly, the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was completed on 3 Sh. Bittal Das Parwal vs. ACIT 29.12.2017 and income was assessed at Rs.6.18,74,055/- by making the following additions and also penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and other sources. The original return of income was e-filed on 31/10/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 15,46,83,000/-, which includes additional income officer to tax Rs. 14,97,82,023/- under the head ITA 419/JP/2018_ 2 Shri Ashok Kr. Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT cash advances, interest received on cash advances to various persons and undisclosed

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and other sources. The original return of income was e-filed on 31/10/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 15,04,61,890/-, which includes additional income officer to tax Rs. 14,97,82,023/- under the head cash ITA 421/JP/2018_ 2 Shri Ram Das Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT advances, interest received on cash advances to various persons and undisclosed

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case notice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads as under: “Penalty Notice Under Section 274, Read with Section 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)

penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no substantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether Special leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee].” 9 Supporting case laws u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain was already declared in the original return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act and was also duly recorded in the books of account, therefore, the same cannot be treated as concealed income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied U/s 271

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain was already declared in the original return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act and was also duly recorded in the books of account, therefore, the same cannot be treated as concealed income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied U/s 271

SHRI HARISH KUMAR VASWANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

U/s 271(1)(c) and finding given in the penalty order, penalty is not levible. In support, reliance was placed on various decisions including decision in case of CIT vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 (SC), CIT vs. M/s Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Ors. 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and decision of the Third Member of the Tribunal

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain was already declared in the original return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act and was also duly recorded in the books of account, therefore, the same cannot be treated as concealed income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied U/s 271

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain was already declared in the original return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act and was also duly recorded in the books of account, therefore, the same cannot be treated as concealed income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied U/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain was already declared in the original return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act and was also duly recorded in the books of account, therefore, the same cannot be treated as concealed income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied U/s 271

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain was already declared in the original return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act and was also duly recorded in the books of account, therefore, the same cannot be treated as concealed income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied U/s 271

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty. This intention is also supported by the further fact that the ROI filed u/s 148 is deemed to be an ROI filed u/s 139 and all the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. Looking from this angle in absence of any difference in the returned and assessed income. 4. Supporting case laws u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

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

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

penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no substantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether Special leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee].”\n9 Supporting case laws u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.148:\n9.1

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain at Rs. 11,47,834/-adopting purchase cost at Rs. 30,000/- and resultantly made an addition of Rs. 9,92,094/- in assessment in declared LTCG and simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

capital gain.\n3. That order of learned Assessing Authority is based on assumptions and presumptions and\nagainst real facts of the case.\n4. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in making penalty of Rs.\n203275/- U/s 271

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) ‘’ UNDISPUTED FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7 SMT. JAMNA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WRD 7(2), JAIPUR Registration of land in the name of other family members - to camouflage the title - to protect the ownership from ongoing disputes - not a transfer and therefore - no capital gain