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

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, 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

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

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. A notice of recovery for outstanding demand was served upon the appellant by affixture as the daughter in law of the appellant, who was available at the relevant time, has refused to accept the said notice. Subsequently, the AO vide its order dated 19.08.2015 issued u/s

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)

151/- was added to the total income of the assessee treating the amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and tax is charged as per provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act. In the absence of any arguments advanced by the appellant in support of this ground of appeal, the same is decided on merits

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)

151/- was added to the total income of the assessee treating the amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act and tax is charged as per provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act. In the absence of any arguments advanced by the appellant in support of this ground of appeal, the same is decided on merits

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

penalty u/s 7 MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR 271(1)© of the Act separately. Conclusively, the total income is assessed at Rs.6,02,200/- u/s 144 of the Act by the AO. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the both the grounds

TEJ SINGH SINSINWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1) and 271(1)(b) and 271F for not filing\nof 1 T Return, which was served on the assessee by registered post.\nIt is explicitly stated in the remand report that as per the information available on\nITS received by bank, the assessee had deposited Rs.5,17,980/- on 26.08.2010.\nRelevant para reads as under

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