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)

10. To bolster this submission, the learned counsel for the assessee took refuge of Explanation 5 and Explanation 5A of Section 271 of the Act and submitted that these Explanations provide that in cases of search by way of deeming fiction, the liability towards penalty has been prescribed even in cases where the return of income for such year

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

26 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, Ajmer. (b) a sum computed at the rate of sixty per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered under the provisions of clause (a).] (2) No penalty under the provisions of 53[section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

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.

10 crores which was spread over to various assessment years and offered to tax in the returns of income filed in response to notices issued under section 153A of the IT Act. The AO while completing the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act made the additions to the total income declared by the assessee

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.

10 crores which was spread over to various assessment years and offered to tax in the returns of income filed in response to notices issued under section 153A of the IT Act. The AO while completing the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act made the additions to the total income declared by the assessee

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.

10 crores which was spread over to various assessment years and offered to tax in the returns of income filed in response to notices issued under section 153A of the IT Act. The AO while completing the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act made the additions to the total income declared by the assessee

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

26. It was submitted that the deeming fiction under Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked since the conditions precedent for invoking Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) do not exist and that lack of due diligence in determining the ALP is neither indicated nor inferred by the Ld. AO, thus levying penalty

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

26. It was submitted that the deeming fiction under Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked since the conditions precedent for invoking Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) do not exist and that lack of due diligence in determining the ALP is neither indicated nor inferred by the Ld. AO, thus levying penalty

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10-11 vide Pr. 5.4-5.5 has considered the meaning of the expression "due date” to be the due date as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, a plain reading of the said Expl. 5A nowhere suggest so. In fact, it does not even refer to section 139 itself (what to talk of S. 139(1) or section

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

section 271(l)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The Hon'ble High Court went on to hold that: 'Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.... But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

26,677/- under clause 1(a) of that section Smt. Aparna Agarwal, Kota. despite the fact that manner of earning of undisclosed income was not disclosed by the assessee. 2. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares which has resulted Long Term Capital Gains are duly recorded

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.

26,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 On appeal against the penalty proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty dismissing the appeal of the assessee stating that the assessee failed to comply to various notices issued by NFAC, whereas none of the notices was ever served on the assessee Brief facts of the case

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

10 /20 / 30% since the assessee falls in Clauses (a) / (b) / (c) of section 271AAB of the Act. He should have further mentioned that as the assessees case falls under clause-c of section 271AAB of the Act, why she should not be visited by penalty @ 30% of the undisclosed income. Against this charge the assessee should have been given

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

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

10. It was further held by the ld. CIT(A) that as per clause (b) of explanation 5A, the term used is “due date” and not “due date as specified u/s 139(1)” and therefore, even if assessee files return of income after date of search but within extended due date u/s 139(4) by including the unaccounted income admitted

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

26,52,624/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act more so when :- a) The appellant was not having any undisclosed income within the meaning of section 271AAB of the Act, therefore, no penalty under this section can be imposed on assessee. b) The penalty was levied by drawing the inference only from the statement recorded

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

u/s 271AAA of the Act. It was submitted that the legal proposition so laid down continues to apply in context of section 271AAB(1)(a) with a variation of levy of penalty @ 10% as against discharge from levy of penalty under section 271AAA(2) of the Act. In this regard, we refer to the various authorities on the subject

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

26 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding