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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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

penalty could be levied u/s 271(1)(c). 5.1 It was further submitted that Section 153A deals with the provision of framing the assessment in the case of search and seizure action made under the Act. The section starts with a non obstante clause relating to normal assessment procedure covered by Section 139, 147, 148,149, 151

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

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

151(1) from the competent authority. However, the notice remained un-complied with. Therefore, a notice u/s 142(1) dated 8/9/2021 was issued, requiring the assessee to furnish ITR in compliance to notice u/s 148 & certain other details/documents This notice too remained un-complied with. Since, the notices, issued to the assessee, remained un-complied with, therefore, a final opportunity

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

151 ITR 138 (Raj) - The purpose and intent of the provisions of s. 274(1) are that the assessee should have full opportunity of hearing before penalty is levied upon him. 2.5 The specific ground of penalty had never been communicated: - The term ‘reasonable opportunity’ postulates that the facts, on the basis of which the penalty is proposed

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

151 ITR 333 (Raj) held that filing of revised return (revised computation in the assessee's case) as to levy penalty under section 271 (1)(c). Similarly, Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vijay, Jaipur v. ITO in ITA No. 58/JP/2016 for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 04.10.2017 held that "In the peculiar facts

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

u/s 271(1)(c). I therefore, proceed to levy penalty of Rs. 7,73,859/-. ” 30 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 21. We therefore find that uncertain charge at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings is followed by a certain charge and definite finding at the time of passing the penalty proceedings as to the concealment

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)

151(1) of the Act, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2022 requiring him to file ITR for the AY 2015-16. However, in response there, the assessee did not file his ITR u/s 148 of the Act. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with 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)

151(1) of the Act, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2022 requiring him to file ITR for the AY 2015-16. However, in response there, the assessee did not file his ITR u/s 148 of the Act. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

151 of the Act and very foundation of the issuance of the notice u/s 148\nwas not as per law. Then in that eventuality, we are of the view that the issuance\nnotice 148 of the Act and all the consequent proceedings and assessment order\npassed was not in accordance with law. The case laws relied upon

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

151 of the Act and very foundation of the issuance of the notice u/s 148\nwas not as per law. Then in that eventuality, we are of the view that the issuance\nnotice 148 of the Act and all the consequent proceedings and assessment order\npassed was not in accordance with law. The case laws relied upon

SMT. KRISHNA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar. 2. In ITA No. 434/JP/2023, the assessee has marched this Smt. Krishna vs. ITO appeal on the following grounds:- “1. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal & bad in law as the same has been passed

SMT. KRISHNA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI,, ALWAR

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar. 2. In ITA No. 434/JP/2023, the assessee has marched this Smt. Krishna vs. ITO appeal on the following grounds:- “1. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal & bad in law as the same has been passed

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

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 & was beyond

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’ 9 ITA NO.414.JPR/2025 SYLVAN GREEN PRIVATE LTD VS DCIT,CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR 2.3 In first appeal, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by confirming the action of the AO as to the addition

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

151 and section 153, in the case of a person 5 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003 [but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021]. the Assessing Officer shall issue notice

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

u/s 80HHC of the Act. On the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer from investigation he considered the entry for export of 70 lacs as bogus. He denied benefit u/s 80HHC of the Act. Further, he made addition of Rs. 70 lacs in the income u/s 68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee