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)

Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act – In this case return was filed on 29.8.1996 – Later on a survey was conducted u/s 133A on 6.2.1997 in the case of a third person Vasumal where an agreement was found disclosing purchase of plot by assessee through Vasumal for a consideration of Rs.13.51 lakh out of which Rs.11 Lakh was paid upto

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)© dated 16 Both 07-10-2016 4. Copy of penalty notice ated 14-03-2019 17 Both 5. Copy of assessee’s reply dated 19-03-2019 in 18-24 Both response to above notice 6. Copy of ITAT order dated 10-04-2018 in assessee’s 25-94 Both own case

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

124 taxmann.com 72\n(Delhi\nTrib.)\nHeld: CSR expenses are statutorily disallowed under Explanation 2 to Section\n37(1), even if incurred in connection with business. Claiming deduction amounts to\ninaccurate particulars of income. Supports penalty for CSR claims.\n\nBharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. ACIT\nCitation: [2021] 125\ntaxmann.com 199\n(Delhi\nHeld:\nTrib.)\nCSR expenditure is application

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

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

124/[2002] 123 Taxman 1052 (MP), and CIT vs. Suraj Bhan [2007] 294 ITR 481/159 Taxman 26 (Punj. & Har.) 24. It was further submitted that the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w section 153A does not specify under which limb the penalty is initiated. Nor does notice u/s 274 do so. It was submitted that for levy of penalty u/s

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)

271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the specific default committed by the appellant rendering the appellant liable to penalty under Income Tax Act. 4.2 Ld CIT(A) also erred in law in not quashing the patently illegal penalty order when the final show cause notice issued by the AO on the basis

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice u/s 271 (1) (c) for imposing of penalty without specifying the limb for reasons to impose penalty whether 7 ITA 1266/JP/2019_ M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT for concealment of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income is not as per law and assessing officer did not have any jurisdiction

RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

u/s 153A was not based on any incriminating material found in case of search in his case but was included voluntarily to avoid litigation. The addition for alleged interest on alleged advance was only estimated which was also not based on any incriminating material seized in course of search. 5.3 In support, the ld AR relied on the following judicial

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

124-127/JP/18 dated 8.04.2019), it was submitted the facts of the said case squarely applies in case of assessee and therefore, the penalty so levied should be deleted. 8. It was further submitted that during the course of search, Rs 8,94,800/- was found from residence of assessee and Rs.3,54,000/- was found from locker

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice u/s 271 (1) (c) for imposing of penalty without specifying the limb for reasons to impose penalty whether for concealment of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income is not as per law and assessing officer did not have any jurisdiction to impose penalty u/s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124/- on various dates\nof FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, which was in violation to the section\n269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The levy of penalty was challenged on\nthe legal ground stating that the order passed was time barred. Before we\ndeal with that aspect of the matter legally, we would like to reproduced

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124/- on various dates\nof FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, which was in violation to the section\n269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The levy of penalty was challenged on\nthe legal ground stating that the order passed was time barred. Before we\ndeal with that aspect of the matter legally, we would like to reproduced

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124/- on various dates\nof FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, which was in violation to the section\n269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The levy of penalty was challenged on\nthe legal ground stating that the order passed was time barred. Before we\ndeal with that aspect of the matter legally, we would like to reproduced

SHRI SURAJMAL BANSAL HUF,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed

u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section ITA No. 124-127/JP/2018 11 Shri Surajmal Bansal HUF and others vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur 271AAB of the Act is parimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124/- on various dates\nof FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, which was in violation to the section\n269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The levy of penalty was challenged on\nthe legal ground stating that the order passed was time barred. Before we\ndeal with that aspect of the matter legally, we would like to reproduced

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

124/- on various dates\nof FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, which was in violation to the section\n269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The levy of penalty was challenged on\nthe legal ground stating that the order passed was time barred. Before we\ndeal with that aspect of the matter legally, we would like to reproduced

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee is an NRI residing in Japan from last 25 years and having his own business at Japan and not filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2015-16 being no taxable income in India originally