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)

148A(d) (PB12-15) and notice u/s 148 on dt.26.03.2025 (PB16) was issued. Thereafter the FAO has issued the notice u/s 142(1) dt. 29.09.2022 and on 24.03.2023 the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur has issued the SCN u/s 21.03.2024 and the draft order u/s 144C(1) has been passed by the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur on dt. 27.03.2022. Ultimately

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act is deleted. 13 Amit Jain vs. Circle (Intl. Tax), Jaipur 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 272A(1)(d) are not absolute in nature and are subject to reasonable cause as contemplated under

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

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

section 148A of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2021. No detailed findings has been recorded by the CIT(A) in his appellate order dated 19-10-2023. b) The ITO Ward-14(1), Kolkata has issued notice u/s 148 without satisfying the mandatory condition of obtaining approval of the concerned authority as laid down u/s 151 of the 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)

148A(d), there is no discussion of sum of Rs.4,68,75,013/- and assessee is alleged 25 SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL VS DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR to have taken fictitious profit of Rs.5,12,17,312/- and has concluded that such amount is liable to be added u/s 68/69. Thereafter, in the show cause notice (APB 138) at para

PHOOL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-W-(106)(2), JAIPUR

u/s 271(1)(b) to the tune of Rs. 40000/- imposed by the AO without\nappreciating that appellant was prevented from making compliance of notice due to Improper\nservice of notice.\nBrief Submission:\nThat the action of worthy CIT(A) in upholding the imposition of penalty by the AO without\nappreciating that the non compliance was unintentional, bona fide

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “AO”] by Faceless Assessment Unit. 2 Raghav Commodities vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the reopening the assessment u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SANDHYA PATNI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c) and evaded tax of Rs. 8,25,061/-. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before me, the ld. D/R supported

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

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b)\nand 271F dt. 27.05.2019 was issued at the registered office of the assessee\ncompany (APB-1). Thus the admission of additional evidence u/r 46A of Income\nTax Rules, 1962 is within the prescribed law and same is also rightly confirmed\nby the Id. CIT(A) by accepting the evidence so produced

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

penalty under section 271[1][c]\n4) In the facts and the circumstances of law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred\nin dismissing appeal By totally overlooking judgment in the case of Rajeev Bansal by SC and\nnot deciding the issue of time barred case of the Appellant .\"\n3.\nSuccinctly, the fact as culled out from the records

PANKAJ KUMAR MITTAL,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, stands allowed

Penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That the Learned Assessing Officer passed\nthe Assessment Order U/s 147 r.w.s 144without verifying the Facts completed\nthe Assessment with predetermined Mind made the additions & created the\nDemand.\nRelief claimed in appeal.\nThe Appeal of the Appellant may please be accepted. Assessment Order Dated\n02-03-2023 and Order of Commissioner

PHOOL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-W-(106)(2), JAIPUR

u/s 271(1)(b) to the tune of Rs. 40000/- imposed by the AO without\nappreciating that appellant was prevented from making compliance of notice due to Improper\nservice of notice.\nBrief Submission:\nThat the action of worthy CIT(A) in upholding the imposition of penalty by the AO without\nappreciating that the non compliance was unintentional, bona fide

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

148A(d) od the Act\ndated 30.03.2022 are nullity having been passed in complete violation of the\nbinding notification dated 29.03.2023 issued u/s 151A r.w.s 144B of the Act,\nmandating for the Id. AO to complete the proceeding in faceless manner only as\nagainst done manually and hence, the same deserves to be quashed.\n“10. The Id. AO further

NITU KHADARIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), NCRB BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Penalty was also initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that the assessee had filed complete details, along with supporting evidence, which was being duly reflected on the ITBA portal, but the Ld.AO did not give cognizance to the same, and passed the assessment order u/s 144, by falsely stating

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee in support of his claim along with condonation delay application also provided the affidavit as per the law, It is further submitted that even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) could have asked assessee to furnish other

RAVINDRA GAUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

Penalty proceedings for non-compliance of the notices issued u/s 142(1) to the assessee as discussed above in the order, for unexplained income/cash deposit as discussed above in the order, and non filing of ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act as discussed above in the order, are initiated by way of issuing show cause notice u/s 271

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