VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty of Rs.1,37,000, u/s 271(1)(c), on the trading additions and commission payment sustained in the quantum proceedings of Rs. 4,42,953, worked out on estimate basis. 5 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 1.2. During the course of quantum proceedings, before the lower authorities, all the details of the purchases made by the assessee

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

u/s 271AAB.\nHowever this contention of the appellant is misfounded as is not such condition\nfor the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act.\nThe acceptance during the course of search and seizure action and the offering of\nthe income in the return of income on these accounts is guided by the principle of\nsection

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

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

Section 271(1)© , the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs.2,67,647/-. For that reason, I am satisfied that ‘’Assessee’’ has committed default u/s 271(1)( c) of theI.T. Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

Section 271(1)© , the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs.2,67,647/-. For that reason, I am satisfied that ‘’Assessee’’ has committed default u/s 271(1)( c) of theI.T. Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

u/s 143(3) rw.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating the facts and submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings, which is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 6) That Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the invocation of the provisions of section 145(3) and rejecting the books of accounts regularly maintained and duly

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

u/s 143(3) rw.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating the facts and submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings, which is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 6) That Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the invocation of the provisions of section 145(3) and rejecting the books of accounts regularly maintained and duly

YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

u/s 143(3)\nrw.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating the facts and submissions\nmade during the course of assessment proceedings, which is\nunjustified, unwarranted and excessive.\n6) That Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the\ninvocation of the provisions of section 145(3) and rejecting the books of\naccounts regularly maintained and duly

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed. Copy of same order is also enclosed. Therefore by considering the Jurisdictional High Court and ITAT judgement. The penalty levied deserves to be deleted. (4) No penalty can be levied on estimated additions – In this case the Learned Assessing Officer has disallowed 25% of unverifiable purchases and the learned CIT(A) has restricted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

145(3) of the IT. Act, 1961 and determined profit applying percentage\ncompletion method.\n3.3 During the year under consideration the assessee has not disclosed\nactual sales therefore, the profit of Rs. 4,83,29,011/- arrived only from\nadvances received from customers. This profit was not declared by the\nassessee while furnishing its return of income. As this action

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) r.w.s.153B (1)\n(b) of I. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 30-03-2016 after disallowance of expenses\non account of personal element/unverifiable expenses. The A.O. simultaneously\ninitiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The assessee filed his\nexplanation to the said notice which was rejected by A.O. and vide impugned\npenalty order dated levied a penalty

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

145 and the action of ld CIT(A) deserves to be set aside The ld CIT(A) held that the assessee has recorded bogus sales to the extent Rs. 6,76,59,000/- which shall be reduced from sales shown by the appellant for the year. At the same time, he has accepted all the other entries of books

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

271(1)(C), 271A and 271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

S R AGRO TECH,BEHROR vs. ITO, WARD, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 145(3) is invoked and a lump sum trading addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- is made to the total income of the assessee taking in to account all possible leakage on trading front. Accordingly, trading addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- is made to the total income of the assessee on estimate bases for the year under consideration

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act and in assuming the net profit at the rate of 10 percent against the net profit at the rate of 8 percent declared by the assessee appellant and in making the differential addition of Rs. 3,63,912/-. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act and in assuming the net profit at the rate of 10 percent against the net profit at the rate of 8 percent declared by the assessee appellant and in making the differential addition of Rs. 3,63,912/-. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

271 AAC. The penalty proceedings are premature and bad in law as the substantive additions are disputed and not sustainable. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential in nature. The interest charges are not sustainable once the additions

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 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.” 3. The fact as culled out from the record is that in this case originally return of income was e-filed on 30.09.2013 declaring

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 270A(1) r.w.s.270A(9)(a) and u/s 271 AAC. The\npenalty proceedings are premature and bad in law as the substantive additions are\ndisputed and not sustainable.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and\nerred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. LAKHI GEMS, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of appeal taken by the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is hereby dismissed

section 145(3). 3 ITA No. 1306/JP/2019 & CO No. 04/JP/2020 ACIT, Jaipur Vs. M/s Lakhi Gems, Jaipur 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the trading addition of Rs. 3 lacs. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 3