AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer ought to have been recorded his satisfaction. However, Ld. AO has failed to do so. The same is in violation of CBDT Circular no. 09/DV/2016 dated 26.04.2016 advising Assessing Officer to make a reference

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Penalty Notice Under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income – Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur PAN:ABUPS0573B Date: 04-03-2014 Shri Dhanraj Sethia 1013, Mishra Rajaji Ka Rasta Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the A.Y. 2012-13, it appears

SHAMBHU KUMAR AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, we confirm the levy of penalty @ 10% on the undisclosed income of Rs

131(1) on 21.08.2015, the assessee in reply to Question No. 12 submitted that he has purchased Chinese yuan worth Rs. 4,00,000/- during April, 2015 for ensuing China tour, which subsequently cannot be carried out for one or another reason. It was submitted that the said Chinese yuan was purchased out of the saving of assessee and were

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 of the IT Act, 1961 that said amount of\nRs.8.40 Crore Lakh is declared as current year business income buy\npiece and avoid long litigation with department. Thus, it is a dumb\nwritten paper. Further the officers of search proceedings and Ld. A.O.\nalso accepted that the same is dumb written names, places and figures\nas no further enquiry/investigation

SH. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), AJMER, AJMER

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

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

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) was to be quashed. Omprakash T. Mehta Vs. ITO (2020) 193 DTR 25 (Bom.) (HC) Two limbs i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. AO has to indicate in the statutory notice for which

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

u/s 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 1986-87. In case of non-submission of such evidence, it is observed that there is delay of 21 years and 179 days as per Form No. 35. Therefore, please show cause as to why the appeal should not be treated as late filed as per provisions of section

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

u/s 271(1)(c). I therefore, proceed to levy penalty of Rs. 7,73,859/-. ” 30 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 21. We therefore find that uncertain charge at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings is followed by a certain charge and definite finding at the time of passing the penalty proceedings as to the concealment

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)

131 taxmann.com 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

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act is deleted. 13 Amit Jain vs. Circle (Intl. Tax), Jaipur 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 272A(1)(d) are not absolute in nature and are subject to reasonable cause as contemplated under

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)

131 taxmann.com 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

271 (1) (c). In the case(s) Radha Mohan Maheshwari Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 773/JP/2013) Mohd. Sharif Khan Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 441/JP/2014) Shankar Lal Khandelwal Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 878/JP/2013)Murari Lal Mittal (ITA No. 334/JP/2015 order dated 9-11-2016 and Mridula Agarwal (ITA No. 176/JP/2016) the Hon'ble Bench upheld the same view

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law and also that the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. However if we look at the operative portion of the Assessment order, it is clear that the A.O had mentioned in his order that The original return filed

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) was initiated by the Id. AO in order u/s. 143(3). The first appeal of the assessee was dismissed (P.B. pages 15 to 23) whereas the second appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT was partly allowed (P.B. pages 24 to 35) with direction to allow deduction @ 100% under section 10A of Act on enhanced profit

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