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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(b) of the Act is leviable for the default(s) under consideration for the given assessment year. The assessee has failed to prove that there was reasonable cause as per the section 2738 of the Act for non- compliance to the statutory notice(s) in question. 7. As has been stated in the assessment order as well

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and a notice u/s 274 read with section 271 dated 18.02.2015 was issued to the assessee company. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and raised an additional ground of appeal stating that

M/S. JHANDEWALA FOODS LIMITED 35, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground no

section 144C(1)/143(3) dated 25.12.2017 was issued along with demand notice u/s 156 of even date determining a sum of Rs 92,340 as tax payable by the assessee and penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S CENTURY INFRA POWER P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144C of the Act dated 15.12.2017. Along with the assessment order, a notice of demand was issued u/s 156 raising a demand of Rs. 7,76,010. Separately, penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

144C(1) has been passed by the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur on dt. 27.03.2022. Ultimately the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur has passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 on dt.24.05.2023 at a total income of Rs. Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. 60,04,230/- by making addition of Rs. 52,54,225/- on account of unexplained money under section

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)

144C(1) has been passed by the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur on dt. 27.03.2022. Ultimately the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur has passed the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 on dt.24.05.2023 at a total income of Rs. Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. 60,04,230/- by making addition of Rs. 52,54,225/- on account of unexplained money under section

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

144C and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, and send a copy of the assessment order to the National Faceless Assessment Centre; (xxx) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall, upon receipt of the assessment order referred to in clause (xxvi) or clause (xxix), as the case may be, serve a copy of such order and notice for initiating penalty proceedings

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

144C of the Act read with Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel)\nrules 2009 the Panel has to adjudicate the matter and cannot set aside any draft\nassessment order. Even otherwise the Panel doesn't find any infirmity on the\nissue of notices sent under section 148 of the Act. The assessee's objections on\nthe above ground are rejected

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 :

Section 144C of the Act, thereby violating the due procedure of the law. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law because impugned Assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act is barred by limitation and also without requisite approval u/s 153D

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 :

Section 144C of the Act, thereby violating the due procedure of the law. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law because impugned Assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act is barred by limitation and also without requisite approval u/s 153D

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 :

Section 144C of the Act, thereby violating the due procedure of the law. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law because impugned Assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act is barred by limitation and also without requisite approval u/s 153D

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 :

Section 144C of the Act, thereby violating the due procedure of the law. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law because impugned Assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act is barred by limitation and also without requisite approval u/s 153D

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

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

Section 144C of the Act, thereby violating the due procedure of the law.\n8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld.\nCIT(A) is bad in law because impugned Assessment order passed u/s 153C of\nthe Act is barred by limitation and also without requisite approval u/s 153D of the\nAct

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

144C(5) of the Act. In the impugned order, Learned PCIT also observed in para 5 thereof that the AO had failed to apply his mind to the material available on record, and also to invoke the applicable provisions of law, and that the same 3 Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT resulted in passing an erroneous order

VISHNO MOTWANI,AJMER vs. CIRCLE(INTTAX), JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to be initiated separately for non- compliance of the notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 19.09.2022 within the given time." 6. As is available from the record, the assessee filed objections before Learned DRP, challenging the above said draft assessment order. Those objections were disposed

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavvaibhav Global Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Jaipur. Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv4679F

penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4 A.Y.2016-17 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying on the business of manufacturing and export of gold jewellery studded with precious and semi-precious stones. It filed its return of income declaring

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

271(1)(c). The appellant’s appeal before Ld. CIT (Appeals) against above order u/s 143(3) of the A.O. is pending as on date for disposal. 1.3 Post the above, Ld. CIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 11-10-2018 to revise the above order of the A.O. Copy of the notices dated

SUNIL KUMAR NAYAK,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Ld. Ao.

271(1)(c) as well as sec 271AAC of the act. 9. 4. On facts and in circumstances ld.AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the act. 10. 5. Appellant reserves the right to add/alter/ modify/ delete any or all ground of appeal.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that