ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

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

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota (Raj.) for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (page nos. 108-114 of paper book) (B) IN RELATION TO SHARES SALES: Summary of shares sale during the year under consideration (page no. 115 of paper book) Copy of sales bills/contract notes of shares (page

SHRI MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

u/s 132A. Therefore, the observation of the lower authorities that section 132A is at par with section 132 and therefore in Explanation 5, once reference is made to section 132 then the same is automatically deemed to include reference to section 132A is incorrect interpretation of the law. Therefore, the penalty imposed by AO and confirmed

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

GOYAL SALT PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with no

u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the particular of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have been initiated separately". Therefore it is clear that the very initiation of penalty proceedings are invalid and not sustainable in law. The copy of notice dated 25.03.2015 & 11.08.2015 are scanned as under: - Office of : ITO, Ward- 6(2), Jaipur Notice Under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

115-O; or ii. the second proviso to section 194B, then, such persons shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such persons failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid.” 4.6 It was further submitted that at the same time, Section 273B of the IT Act provides that in case

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

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

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

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

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

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

115/- giving G.P. rate of 33.06% on the turnover of Rs.16,00,18,539/- and Net profit at Rs. 1,69,16,388/- Giving NP rate of 10.57% in last year. The AO alleged that the auditor in Audit report has mentioned that the assessee has not maintained the day to day stock register. The AO has further noted that

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

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

penalty u/s 7 MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR 271(1)© of the Act separately. Conclusively, the total income is assessed at Rs.6,02,200/- u/s 144 of the Act by the AO. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the both the grounds