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)

144B of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the AO. Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 2.1 In ITA No. 788/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 12,51,906/- imposed

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)

144B of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the AO. Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 2.1 In ITA No. 788/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 12,51,906/- imposed

DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 144B of the Income tax Act was finalized on 21.09.2021 assessing total income to the tune of Rs. 1,97,008/-. The penalty proceedings u/s. 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SANDHYA PATNI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for concealing the particulars of income ignoring the facts that no appeal has been filed by the assessee against the addition of Rs. 26,70,100/- made vide order passed u/s 147 read with section 144B

REENA MATHUR,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.03.2022, Penalty proceedings was separately initiated for non- compliance of above referred Notices u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

u/s 148 he accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income. And if he intends to do so a fresh notice

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

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

271(1) (c ) of I.T. Act, 1961 and simultaneously ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty without establishing either the concealment of income which is liable to be quashed. 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 168/JPR/2025, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,DAUSA RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD, DAUSA, ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

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

271(1) (c ) of I.T. Act, 1961 and simultaneously ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty without establishing either the concealment of income which is liable to be quashed. 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 168/JPR/2025, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) dated 18.08.2022. 2. In ITA No. 1307/JP/2024, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal; 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in passing the order u/s 147 read with section 144 r.w.s. 144B

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 274 of the Act against the assessee in a mechanical manner. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing. 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 636 days in filing of the appeal

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

RAJASTHAN SHIKSHA SANKUL BHAWAN SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

penalty imposed u/s. 271 F of the Act.\nThe quantum appeal is restored back for de-novo adjudication, and the assessee\nis allowed to represent the matter again, but as this matter pertains to non-filing\nof return and there is no relation of this appeal with the restoration of the matter,\nhence confirmed. In above terms, grounds raised

MANEESH JOSHI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Shri Maneesh Joshi आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 613/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2018-19 बनाम | The ITO, Vs. Ward-Dausa Dausa Ward No. 24, Jageer (Rural) Bandikui, Baswa Road, Bandikui, Tehsil: Baswa, Dausa-303 313 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGFPJ 8810N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojh

U/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) & 271(1)(b) Income

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

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

144B by making addition of Rs.5,12,17,312/- i.e. profit on certain filtered transactions by alleging the same as being on account of rapid reversal trades by flouting SEBI Rules and thus by treating the genuine profits of assessee as accommodation entry and unexplained money u/s 69A. The narration as made by the AO in his order is reproduced

GCK STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

u/s 147 rws 144B was passed on\n26.05.2023 after making addition of Rs.4,96,87,796/- by disallowing the loss.”\n6. Conclusion\n6.1 The reopening under Section 148A is valid as it was based on credible SEBI reports,\nInvestigation Wing data, and broker statements.\n6.2 The assessee has failed to provide any credible explanation of reversal trade in BSE stock

KALU JAT,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has also been\ninitiated separately for concealment of particulars of above income.\n(Addition Made: Rs. 4,33,628/-)\"\n5.\nBeing aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before\nthe ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that various notices were issued to the\nassessee requiring the assessee

MIKUNI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT,

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

144B of the Act and assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,75,33,340/-, while making additions on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to Rs. 6,44,86,098/-. 3. Before passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment

JHUTHA RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 144B of the Act and made total additions of Rs.1,13,88,440/- by observing as under:- ‘’4. On perusal of documents furnished by the assessee, it has been found that the assessee along with four others has purchased a property/land on 01.07.2015 for consideration of Rs. 1,05,54,525/- The payments made for purchasing property