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

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

131. Power regarding discovery, production of evidence etc. (1) The Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] Joint Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals) and Chief Commissioner or Commissioner shall, for the purpose of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following

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

d ugha gSA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij esjk ekuuk gS fd :i;s 10]05]301@& ds dfFkr vfxze ds laca/k esa /kkjk 271¼1½¼c½ ds varxZr 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djuk U;k;ksfpr gS vkSj eSa ml 'kkfLr dks iq"V djrk gwWaA bl izdkj vihy ds bl vk/kkj dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 5-7 vihy

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

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)

1 (JD). 4.1 Covered matter: The Honble Raj. High Court in the case of CIT V/s Raj Kumar Sharma 294 ITR 131 (Raj.) It has been held that reasonable cause for the purpose of penalty u/s 271D- Tribunal having accepted that bonafide belief of the assessee that cash transaction below of Rs. 20,000/- did not attract penalty u/s 271D

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

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

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

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

d. Heavy litigation cost of Representatives e. Withdrawn of appeal at instance of Assessee is the discretion of Appellate authority. ITA 150/JP/2016_ 7 Rajendra Kumar Sharda Vs ITO Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Mak Data Ltd. vs. CIT [2013-ITRV-SC-140] has held that under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income

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

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 of the Constitution, by way of section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI vs. SHRI PRATAP SINGH TANWAR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) by the AO is unlawful and unjustified for the following reasons:- (i) Trading addition of Rs.2,85,181/- (a) The assessee maintains regular books of accounts which is subject to audit. During the year, he declared gross profit of Rs.18,02,976/- on turnover of Rs.2,98,30,810/- giving gross profit rate of 6.04% as against

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)

d lnL; ,oaJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.572/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 cuke Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal JCIT, Vs. Jhalra Patan Narain Takies Range-1, Road, Near Ranchoad Mandir Kota Jhalra Patan, Jhalawar LFkk

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 646/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 Saket Agarwal cuke The ITO, 27, Everest Vihar, Kings Road, Vs. Ward-2(3), Jaipur. Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk

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

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

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.” (Ground wise submissions are as follows) After discussing the brief facts of the case and grounds of appeal, the appellant very humbly and respectfully begs to submit

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

131 of the IT Act, 1961 for sustaining the addition of Rs.5 lacs. 3.2 The issue raised by the assessee in the cross appeal is regarding enhancement of assessment made by the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of the application made u/s 245C(1) of the Act before Settlement Commission which was rejected for want of any conclusive proof