PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c), the\ncontentions of voluntary surrender to buy peace and avoid litigation\netc. are liable to be rejected and in the context of section 271AAB\neven the question of considering such contentions does not arise.\nFrom the perusal of the statement of the assessee recorded in the\ncourse of search and seizure action it is seen that

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 4. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 4. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 4. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 4. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

127 (SC)/(2021) 283 Taxman 285 (SC)[14-09-2021] held that assessee failed to discharge its burden in proving that there was a reasonable cause in accepting deposits from staff members in violation of section 269SS, the SLP filed by the aseessee was dismissed. The head notes of the decision read as under- "Section 269SS, read with sections

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

127 (SC)/[2021] 283 Taxman 285 (SC) 8.0 In result, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has preferred this appeal on the grounds as reiterated here in above. To support the various grounds so raised the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

u/s\n271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act were initiated along with the assessment order\ndated 29.09.2010, for filing inaccurate particulars of income and\nconcealing the income. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment\norder and the ld.CIT(A) provided partial relief to the assessee.\nConsequent to the order passed by CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings,\nthe AO levied

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act\n13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of\nthe grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.\n4. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a Search\n& Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

KALPANA JHALA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. 5.1 During the appellate proceedings the assessee has disputed the penalty on grounds that she never received any of the notices and that service was not established. However it is admitted that notice u/s 142(1) was received by the tax consultant

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271F, 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) may kindly be deleted. 4. The petitioner craves the right to add, alter or in any way amend the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing.” The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal and the same is reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated

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

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

SUBHASH CHAND PATNI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Mean-while, the case was assigned to ITO Ward 6(5), Jaipur u/s 127 of the IT Act, 1961 as per Order No.Pr.CIT-2/JPR/127/2017- 18/411 Dated 02.06.2017 and the assessment records pending assessment u/s 143(3) were received in this Ward on 07.06.2017. Notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act along

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest of justice.” 3. The fact as culled out from the record is that in this case originally return of income was e-filed on 30.09.2013 declaring

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

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b)\nand 271F dt. 27.05.2019 was issued at the registered office of the assessee\ncompany (APB-1). Thus the admission of additional evidence u/r 46A of Income\nTax Rules, 1962 is within the prescribed law and same is also rightly confirmed\nby the Id. CIT(A) by accepting the evidence so produced

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was serving in Rajasthan Police as a sub-inspector during the year under consideration. The assessee had not filed his return of income u/s