JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c), the penalty is leviable if the appellant is not able to substantiate the explanation offered by him and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him. The assessment order, the order

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)

iii) exempts from deduction of ITDS on income credited or paid to any Banking Company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 & 3 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’5. Findings:- The grounds of appeal, the submissions made by the appellant

AMAR BHARTI,JAIPUR vs. ASSTT.. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

iii) Again it is an undisputed and un-denying fact that due to change of address, the impugned notices did not reach the appellant in time. In the circumstances, the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from making compliance of the impugned notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act within the meaning of section 273B

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1), the assessee\nfurnished return of income on 28-11-2014 declaring total income of Rs.\n10,13,77,660/- which includes the undisclosed income of Rs.10,01,13,351/- which\nhad been accepted by the assessee himself during his statements u/ 132(4) of the\nAct during search. It is noted that the assesee is a partner

SHRI SHYAM SUNDER DUSEJA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(3), JAIPUR, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied is hereby directed to be deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee

penalty order. If we look at the provisions of 8 Shri Shyam Sunder Duseja, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) which talks about cases of deemed concealment, it read as under: “[Explanation 3. – Where any person fails, without reasonable cause, to furnish within the period specified in sub-section (1) of section

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

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTRIES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

271 ITR 0132 (Delhi); Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2008] 305 ITR 0103 (Supreme Court). In the present case the addition had been made by way of adjustments, vide intimations issued u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act on dt. 17.10.2019 However, at that point of time it is undisputed fact on record that this

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTIRES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

271 ITR 0132 (Delhi); Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2008] 305 ITR 0103 (Supreme Court). In the present case the addition had been made by way of adjustments, vide intimations issued u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act on dt. 17.10.2019 However, at that point of time it is undisputed fact on record that this

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

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

142(1) of the I.T. Act along with the specific questionnaire were issued on 23.06.2017. In response to the notices issued and served/affixed the assessee has not filed any return of income or no submission was filed. Therefore, a final show cause notice was issued on 01.12.2017 fixing for hearing on 08.12.2017. In compliance to final 4 Subhash Chand Patni

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

271 shall not apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 and subsequent assessment years and penalty be levied under the newly inserted section 270A with effect Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT from 1st April, 2017. The new section 270A provides for levy of penalty

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

271 shall not apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 and subsequent assessment years and penalty be levied under the newly inserted section 270A with effect Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT from 1st April, 2017. The new section 270A provides for levy of penalty

AMAN GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

142(1) read with section 263were issued to the Appellant by the DCIT, Circle 4 on 02.07.2019 and the said assessment u/s 143(3)/263 had been completed by assessing loss ofRs. 9,40,770/-. 4. The Appellant has received Show cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from National E assessment

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.6,37,200/-\nconfirmed by him in quantum proceedings.\n2.\nThe appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.\n3.\nNecessary cost be awarded to the assessee.\n3.\nSince both the appeals are of the same assessee and related to\nsame assessment year and argued

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

iii) of sub- section (2) of section 44AA by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 1-4-2011 : (iv ) where the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of the assessee under section 44AD and he has claimed such income to be lower than the profits and gains so deemed

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

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 20.07.2023 submitted vide point no. 14 that deduction of interest was claimed on borrowing from IDFC first bank and PNB housing and the statement of the loan was submitted. Thus, the claim of the assessee was supported by the evidence. It was the decision of the assessee not to challenge the disallowance even