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

125\ntaxmann.com 199\n(Delhi\nHeld:\nTrib.)\nCSR expenditure is application of income and not incurred wholly for business\npurposes. Hence, not allowable and claiming the same invites penalty under\nSection\n271(1)(c) in absence of bona\nfide\nexplanation.\n\nB. Cases Supporting Disallowance under Section 14A\n\nPCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.)Ltd.\nCitation:\n[2019]\n414

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

u/s 271AAB.\nHowever this contention of the appellant is misfounded as is not such condition\nfor the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act.\nThe acceptance during the course of search and seizure action and the offering of\nthe income in the return of income on these accounts is guided by the principle of\nsection

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)

125 the Mysore High Court has held as follows : "What was urged before us was that in a case where an assessee has furnished no return at all before the Income-tax Officer, it should be presumed for the purposes of section 28(1)(b) that he has furnished a return of his income intimating the Income-tax Officer that

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) 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)

125 the Mysore High Court has held as follows : "What was urged before us was that in a case where an assessee has furnished no return at all before the Income-tax Officer, it should be presumed for the purposes of section 28(1)(b) that he has furnished a return of his income intimating the Income-tax Officer that

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

125/-. The assessee surrender half of the said amount in his hand and half was surrender of his son namely Kamal Shethia. Thus, the ld. AR of the assessee has surrendered an amount Rs. 2,17,563/-. Apart from purchase of silver the assessee has also surrendered of Rs. 50 lacs on account of the jewellery found in the bank

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

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

125/-. The assessee surrender half of the said amount in his hand and half was surrender of his son namely Vivek Shethia. Thus, the ld. AR of the assessee has surrendered an amount Rs. 2,17,563/-. Apart from purchase of silver the assessee has also surrendered of Rs. 60 lacs on account of the jewellery found in the bank