KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 5-02-\n2015 in the case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota to which the assessee\nbelongs. It is noted that the AO issued a notice u/s 153 of the Act to the\nassessee on 13-05-2015. In response to the notice, the assessee filed

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal and bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,09,000/- on addition of Rs. 10 lacs made on account of alleged estimated unexplained investment in construction of house. He has further erred in confirming the above penalty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,23,40,919/- imposed by the AO.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search & seizure

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

seizure operation was carried out on 18/07/2012, thus the search was conducted during the financial year relevant to assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB by issuing notice U/s 274 read with Section 271

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

seizure operation was carried out on 18/07/2012, thus the search was conducted during the financial year relevant to assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB by issuing notice U/s 274 read with Section 271

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 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB of the IT Act and a penalty notice was issued accordingly. You are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself

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)

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group on 28.07.2016 to which the assessee is one of the members. Because of that action notices were issued to the above named assessee u/s 153A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee himself declared additional income in the ROI filed u/s 153A of the Act and the assessee has duly understood as to what was Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. the purport and import of the notice and furnished his reply before AO on the charge of concealment of income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee himself declared additional income in the ROI filed u/s 153A of the Act and the assessee has duly understood as to what was Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. the purport and import of the notice and furnished his reply before AO on the charge of concealment of income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee himself declared additional income in the ROI filed u/s 153A of the Act and the assessee has duly understood as to what was Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. the purport and import of the notice and furnished his reply before AO on the charge of concealment of income

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

Search and seizure operations were carried out on 27-08-2008 on residential and business premises of the assessee. The return u/s 153 of the I.T. Act was filed on 31-03-2009 declaring total income of Rs. 5,85,090/- which included additional income surrender of Rs.4,53,819/-. The assessment was made by 6 Narayana Heights & Tower

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act hence, the assessment order passed by the AO on dated 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3), was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record. Hence, the proceedings so initiated u/s

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act hence, the assessment order passed by the AO on dated 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3), was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record. Hence, the proceedings so initiated u/s

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act hence, the assessment order passed by the AO on dated 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3), was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record. Hence, the proceedings so initiated u/s

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act hence, the assessment order passed by the AO on dated 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3), was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record. Hence, the proceedings so initiated u/s

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act hence, the assessment order passed by the AO on dated 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3), was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record. Hence, the proceedings so initiated u/s

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act hence, the assessment order passed by the AO on dated 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3), was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record. Hence, the proceedings so initiated u/s

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act hence, the assessment order passed by the AO on dated 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3), was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record. Hence, the proceedings so initiated u/s