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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties were

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.

exemption, and the transaction had been disclosed in the retum. There was no concealment of income and penalty u/s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance tax on the taxpayer's own estimate, etc., are required to be completed within two years from the date of completion of the proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance tax on the taxpayer's own estimate, etc., are required to be completed within two years from the date of completion of the proceedings

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c). For both the propositions the assessee had relied upon a number of Judicial Authorities, which for sake of brevity are not being extracted here in this order. It is therefore, pertinent to first direct ourselves to the correctness of these propositions. 4.2.1 It is argument of the assessee that the decision of liberty India (Supra

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: -

exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the IT Act, 5,95,91,797 1961/bogus LTCG Disallowance of brought forward long term Rs. 3,18,558/- capital loss against the long term capital gain In the income tax return u/s 153A of the Act, the appellant had declared additional income from long term capital gain of 7 Sh. Bittal Das Parwal

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside." The situation in the present case is still better as no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its Return. 15 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR 12. The Tribunal, as well as, the Commissioner of Income

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

exempt income has been earned to attract any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Thus, we are of the view the ld. PCIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the IT Act and in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we find merit in the grievance raised by the assessee, accordingly we hold that the ld. PCIT

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

271\nAAB of the IT Act, 1961 @30% in above said additional income.\n3.\nThat the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of\ngrounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.\n3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search and\nseizure action u/s 132 of the Income

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely submitting an incorrect claim of a genuine expenditure which assessee may not have been utilized in view of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Appellant relies upon the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

exempt the\nassessee from levy of penalty if such assessee records the correct\nquantity of stock in the books of accounts however EITHER the\npurchase cost is suppressed in the books by making part payment in\nunaccounted manner which would lead to money laundering and\nwould result into earlier unaccounted concealed income being made\nas part of the stock

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 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(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271F, 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) may kindly be deleted. 4. The petitioner craves the right to add, alter or in any way amend the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing.” The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal and the same is reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

exempt under section 10(38), since said transactions of sale and purchase of shares were admitted by assessee and it had not brought on record anything to suggest that reassessment proceedings were being undertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned reopening notice was justified [2023] 152 taxmann.com 573 (SC)/[2023] 454 ITR 794 (SC) [04-0... INCOME TAX: Notice issued

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

exemption up to 30% penalty has provided only if the assessee had offered such undisclosed income in ROI and paid taxes on it. As the assessee had not complied the above conditions, therefore the penalty at the rate of 60% as mentioned in this section is clearly applicable. It is important to mention here that there are specified conditions

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

exemption up to 30% penalty has provided only if the assessee had offered such undisclosed income in ROI and paid taxes on it. As the assessee had not complied the above conditions, therefore the penalty at the rate of 60% as mentioned in this section is clearly applicable. It is important to mention here that there are specified conditions

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

exemption up to 30% penalty has provided only if the assessee had offered such undisclosed income in ROI and paid taxes on it. As the assessee had not complied the above conditions, therefore the penalty at the rate of 60% as mentioned in this section is clearly applicable. It is important to mention here that there are specified conditions

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

u/s\n271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act were initiated along with the assessment order\ndated 29.09.2010, for filing inaccurate particulars of income and\nconcealing the income. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment\norder and the ld.CIT(A) provided partial relief to the assessee.\nConsequent to the order passed by CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings,\nthe AO levied

DCIT,INT.TAX, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 by allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the findings of the AO that the assessee has not submitted any reply during the penalty proceedings? II. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred