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)

115]C been reduced by the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished: Provided that where the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished on any issue is considered both under the provisions contained in section 11518 or section 1151C

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

115/- under the head income from business and profession. The report reveals total turnover of Rs. 1,59,27,862/- which is the total of Mark to Mark (MTM) value irrespective of minus or plus. Thus, ld. AO observed that the assessee is required to keep and maintain books of account u/s. 44AA and the total sales turnover is exceeding

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

115 CCH 245 (Delhi) (HC) Relevant extracts of the decision are as under:- “4. This Court is of the view that the present case is covered by the Division Bench judgment in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, [2015] 61 Taxmann.com 118 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that the expression 'does not form part of the total income' in Section

DATA INGENIOUS GLOBAL LIMITED,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 is also at NIL and also assessment order framed is at NIL under normal\nprovisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and learned Commissioner of Income-\nTax (Appeals)-IV Jaipur has erred in upholding the levy of penalty with\nreference to Rupees 2712184.00.”\n2.1 All the grounds raised by the Appellant relates

ANSHUL JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the appellant in a mechanical\nmanner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before\nthe hearing.\"\n5. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the\nassessee

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the appellant in a mechanical\nmanner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before\nthe hearing.\"\n5. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the\nassessee

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the appellant in a mechanical\nmanner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before\nthe hearing.\"\n5. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the\nassessee

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any Explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any Explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 148 of the Act for verification of cash deposits Rs. 20,96,973/- in its bank from his business of supplying of Milk where the addition made for Asstt. 19 Ram Niwas Yadav vs. ITO Year 2010-2011, by the AO, has been deleted by the Worthy CIT(A), on the basis of report of the Inspector that

CHAND MONAMMAD,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) has not yet been levied and only notice has been issued. Even otherwise penalty proceedings are separate from assessmentproceedings. Hence, this GOA No. 4 is dismissed. 8. In view of above facts the appeal is DISMISSED.’’ 2.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter before this Bench of ITAT

RAVINDRA GAUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

115 BBE Rs. 86,00,000/- Total Taxable income as other source Rs. 86,00,000/- Being Unexplained cash deposit/credit of Rs. 86,00,000/- u/s 68 read with the section 11588E as discussed above in the order for the year under consideration the assessee is liable to pay penalty u's 271

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

penalty of Rs. 41,16,578/- u/s 271(1)(c)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the addition was made by the Learned\nAssessing officer by adopting the stamp duty of Sub-registrar where\nthe assessee has not concealed any income.\n3. The appellant begs permission to add amend or alter any of the\ngrounds of appeal before

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

115 taxmann.com 105/273Taxman 556/423 ITR 281 (SC)that before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act the AO of these arched person must be satisfied that any document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than these arched person. There cording of satisfaction by the AO of these arched person is sine quanon to initiate proceeding u/s 153C

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

115 taxmann.com 105/273Taxman 556/423 ITR 281 (SC)that before issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act the AO of these arched person must be satisfied that any document seized or requisitioned belongs to a person other than these arched person. There cording of satisfaction by the AO of these arched person is sine quanon to initiate proceeding u/s 153C

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r/w section 274 of the IT Act is initiated for concealment of income. 4. Being aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of\nthe above observations

penalty proceedings. Accordingly, the\nground of appeal raised by the appellant on this issue is treated as disposed off.\n8. Ground of Appeal No. 6 is as under:\nGround No. 6: That the appellant craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter\nall or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.\n8.1 The appellant

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