CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Long Term Capital Gain and is being disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee treating the same as income from other sources. Since assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income separately it is a fit case for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Long Term Capital Gain/Loss in its books of account and took advantage for different financial years. The details of the trading of shares in the said scrip made by the assessee during F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to Α.Υ. 2013-14 is as under Name of the beneficiary Script Total value of the script sold during

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.

long term capital gain remained to be taxed. Therefore, it is clearly established that the assessee deliberately concealed her income to the tune of Rs.1,14,75,791/- and it is only disclosed when the assessee’s case has been selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

long-term capital gain' and claimed exemption, but the\ntransaction has been disclosed in the return. That was his mistake and\nnot the mistake of the assessee. When the assessee has disclosed the\ntransaction which is the basis for capital gain tax and though wrongly\nclaimed exemption from the capital gain tax, but that cannot be a case\nof penalty

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

penalty imposable under Chapter XXI is to be initiated and completed within two years.  Action of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act is to be taken within two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. 1.3Even where no limit is prescribed for taking an action under

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

Long term capital Gain.\nii. That the Humble appellant has sold out an Agriculture Land Khasra No 889 Area 9\nBigha 9 Bishwa situated at Village Badraitha Tehsil Bari Distt Dholpur for Rs 6,00,000/-\non dated 13.10.2011 which is outside the Preview of Capital Asset as defined U/s 2(14)\nof the Income Tax Act.\niii. That

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)

long term capital gain by selling agricultural land, disclosed by the assessee in his revised return of Income was accepted by the Assessing Authority and there was no material available on record by which there could be an inference drawn by the authority that it was a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it could

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

penalty be sustained. The Id. DR vehemently submitted\nthat it is not a case of bonafide mistake or error on the part of the assessee.\nIt is a case of known facts to the assessee that there is an incorrect offering\nof the income by the assessee. The assessee only after issuance of the\nnotice u/s. 148 filed

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

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

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

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

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

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

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

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

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

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

long term capital gain of Rs.10,72,028/- and income from other sources Rs.15,368/-. Accordingly, the assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act had been completed on 15-12-2018 at the total income of Rs.12,77,950/-. Hence, the AO initiated penalty u/s 271

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

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

long term capital gain by selling agricultural land, disclosed by the assessee in his revised return of Income was accepted by the Assessing Authority and there was no material available on record by which there could be an inference drawn by the authority that it was a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it could

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

long term capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, therefore, the same is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

long term capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, therefore, the same is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. The penalty proceedings u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

long term capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, therefore, the same is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. The penalty proceedings u/s 271