DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271- E beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of Section 275 (1) (c)." Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 39 (Delhi)/[2017] 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) [05-05-2017] held as under- "9. However, this question

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of\nthe Act were initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining\nprior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\n5.1 A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on\n26.03.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In\nresponse to the notices u/s

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of\nthe Act were initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining\nprior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\n5.1 A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on\n26.03.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In\nresponse to the notices u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

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)

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 18-12-2007 at an income of Rs.1,12,860/- as against the loss of Rs. (-) 3,30,089/- declared in ITR by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had made bogus purchases from M/s Kriya Impex Ltd. of Rs.6

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)

147 read with section 143 (3), the AO has not recorded any satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty under section 271 E or 271 D of the Income Tax Act, which is mandatory on the part of the AO and non recording of such mandatory satisfaction is fatal. In this regard reference was made to a decision

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271 (1)(b) amounting to Rs. 30,000/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had a reasonable cause. 3. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the levy of penalty without the Assessing Officer having issued precise and specific notice for each default u/s 271 (1)(b) as envisaged in the provisions

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

147 and finding it a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s 148 and granting approval by the Pr. CIT-II, Jaipur on 25/03/2019, the AO has issued 4 M/s Rakesh Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO and delivered notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29/03/2019 for service upon the assessee at the given address through the postal authority vide receipt dated

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)©of the Act are allowed. ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member PER :NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I have gone through the draft order communicated by my Learned Brother-Accountant Member. I have reasons to add in dealing with the issue involved, and as such, I proceed to append my reasons, observations and opinion

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)©of the Act are allowed. ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member PER :NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I have gone through the draft order communicated by my Learned Brother-Accountant Member. I have reasons to add in dealing with the issue involved, and as such, I proceed to append my reasons, observations and opinion

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

147 of the Act on 26.12.2017 for the year under consideration and thereby also ordered to pay penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessment was made at Rs.5.38,800/- which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

147 of the Act on 26.12.2017 for the year under consideration and thereby also ordered to pay penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessment was made at Rs.5.38,800/- which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

147 of the Act on 26.12.2017 for the year under consideration and thereby also ordered to pay penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessment was made at Rs.5.38,800/- which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount

MR. MANOJ KUMAR GOUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

147 read with section 144 of the IT Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.11.2017 (PB pages 1-5) in which loss was assessed at Rs. 43,658/-. The AO also issued show cause notice for imposing penalty under section 271B (PB page 6) and eventually imposed penalty under section 271B of Rs. 53,609/- vide order dated 24.05.2018 (PB Pages

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

section 139:] 4.4. Upon reading the above provisions of the Act, it becomes amply clear that the before making the Assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to necessarily issued a notice requiring the Assessee to file the return of income and any such return filed u/s 147 of the Act, replaces the original return of income

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

u/s 69A r.w.s. 1158BE, into total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from that order of assessment the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: 3. Observations, Finding and Decision: 3.1 I have perused the assessment order and other