INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SANDHYA PATNI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

penny stock which has been treated as undisclosed income of the assessee while passing order u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealment.\n7. Legal and Judicial Reasoning:\ni.\nThe\nassessment order emphasizes that in assessing whether a\ntransaction is genuine or sham, the surrounding circumstances, human\nconduct, and the preponderance of probabilities are relevant.\nii.\nThe Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in Hersh Win Chadha

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penny stock has been settled down by filling a declaration under Income declaration scheme. The source of investment so made by the assessee cannot be taxed u/s. 68 of the Act and thereby the ld. AO is taxing the whole receipt without giving the benefit of the money which the assessee invested. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that

LOKENDRA KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately.[Addition of Rs. 3,41,083/-] (7). The reply of the assessee on another issue i.e. commission paid in lieu of bogus entry of short-term Capital Loss, has been considered but not found tenable. The submission of the assessee that he has not entered

RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT 1, C.R. BUILDING,JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.” 3. Succinctly, The Fact As Culled Out From The Records Is That The Return Of Income In This Case Was E-Filed On 29.11.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.

penny stock. As the additions were made penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars

SANTOSH KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO 6(4 ) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is issued separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 4 Santosh Kanwar, Jaipur. 4. Assessee-appellant, an individual, used to draw salary as director of Singla Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. She also used to derive income from capital gains and other sources. As per return of income for the assessment year 2015-16, she declared

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

penny stocks company utilised by stock brokers for providing bogus accommodation entries by artificially raising price of such shares, since AO issued said notice without forming an independent opinion on basis of certain tangible material that assessee's income had escaped assessment and mechanically relied upon information received from other source, impugned reopening notice was to be quashed

GCK STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

penny\nstock transactions.\n2.2 SEBI has the power to conduct inquiries, collect data, and issue orders based on its\ninvestigations. The findings of SEBI carry substantial weight in identifying fraudulent stock\ntransactions and circular trading schemes.\n2.3 In the present case, SEBI's investigative findings clearly indicate that the assesee was\ninvolved in price manipulation, which forms the basis

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 9 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 7 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.4 and Ground

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground is premature at this stage as no such penalty has yet been levied by the AO and hence, the Ground No. 5 &6 are also dismissed. 10. Through Ground No. 7, the appellant craved leave to add, alter, delete, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penny stock and assessee had entered into transaction with 'U' to claim bogus capital gains, it could not be said that Assessing Officer, on absolutely vague or unspecific information initiated proceedings of reassessment without taking pains to form his own belief in respect of such materials. 23 Spectrum Foods Limited vs ITO 18. [2023] 153 taxmann.com 282 Where Assessing Officer

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

penny from the assessee in the last ten years and the assessee even failed to produce the written confirmations from such trade creditors, it could very well be inferred by the Assessing Authority that such trading liability of the 5 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal assessee ceased to exist in law and not only the claims become barred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that