RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

reopen the concluded assessment under s. 147 and/or to revise the assessment order under s. 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) – contents of the notice – requirements of. Assessee is a trust and running a school – income of assessee is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) – Search was conducted in the group case of assessee – notice issued u/s 153C – returned file in response thereto – assessment completed u/s 153A on the returned loss – assessment subsequently reopened

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 13/03/2015 wherein the penalty has been initiated “on assessed undisclosed income” as evident from copy of notice scanned at page No. 9 ITA 421/JP/2018_ 21 Shri Ram Das Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT of this order. The Assessing Officer has not specified under which sub clause of Section the notice has been issued. Thus

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 13/03/2015 wherein the penalty has been initiated “on assessed undisclosed income” as evident from copy of notice scanned at page No. 9 ITA 419/JP/2018_ 21 Shri Ashok Kr. Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT of this order. The Assessing Officer has not specified under which sub clause of Section the notice has been issued. Thus

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 58,525.00 under section 271(1)(C ) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. Submission of written submission for penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act That the case of Humble Appellant was reopened

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 58,525.00 under section 271(1)(C ) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. Submission of written submission for penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act That the case of Humble Appellant was reopened

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 58,525.00 under section 271(1)(C ) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. Submission of written submission for penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act That the case of Humble Appellant was reopened