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)

Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee is an NRI residing in Japan from last 25 years and having his own business at Japan and not filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2015-16 being no taxable income in India originally

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)

Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee is an NRI residing in Japan from last 25 years and having his own business at Japan and not filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2015-16 being no taxable income in India originally

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

u/s\n271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act were initiated along with the assessment order\ndated 29.09.2010, for filing inaccurate particulars of income and\nconcealing the income. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment\norder and the ld.CIT(A) provided partial relief to the assessee.\nConsequent to the order passed by CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings,\nthe AO levied

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

b) CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj), (c)\nCIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) & (d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available

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

b) CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj), (c)\nCIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) & (d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available

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

b) CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj), (c)\nCIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) & (d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available

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

b) CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj), (c)\nCIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) & (d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available

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

b) CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj), (c)\nCIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) & (d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)© of the Act are applicable in this case and it is a fit case to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. I, therefore, proceed to levy of penalty of Rs.16,64,000/- which is calculated as under:- Computation of Penalty A. Total assessed income as per order u/s 143(3) Rs.5

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

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

B-177, Bapu Nagar, Ward 5(1), Mangal Marg, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AARPU 6953 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/03/2023 mn?kks"k.kk

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

penalty can be imposed upon him by invoking provisions of explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c). Regarding clause (b) of explanation 5A, in case of previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return, then even if the income declared during search is disclosed by the assessee in return of income filed on or after date

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

149/-. The assessee has also filed long term capital gain on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 2,78,25,000/- and claimed exempt it U/s 10(38) of the Act. Apart from the dividend income on equity shares, which was also claimed exempted. Thereafter a search and seizure action U/s 132 of the Act was carried

RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

149, 151 and 153 in respect of search made after May 31, 2003. The Section, so excluded relate to filing of returns, assessment and reassessment proceedings. The provision of Section 153A, 153B and 153C are a complete code for assessment wherein search and seizure has been initiated after May 31, 2003. Thus, there is complete detachment of assessment proceedings under

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 initiated\nunder Section 271(1)(c).\"\n4.\nWe note from the submission of the Ld AR vehemently argued that the\ncase of the assessee is squarely covered by the catena of Judgments filed before\nus and pointed out that the issue under reopening is completely time – barred. In\nsupport of the said contention the Learned Authorized Representative pointed

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground is premature at this stage as no such penalty has yet been levied by the AO and hence, the Ground No. 5 &6 are also dismissed. 10. Through Ground No. 7, the appellant craved leave to add, alter, delete, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 of the Constitution, by way of section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income