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

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

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

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

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)

1)) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 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

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

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

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

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

151 of the Act and determine the total income of the assessee. 21. The argument raised by the counsel for the appellant to the effect that once a notice under Section 153A of the Act is issued, the assessments for six years are at large both for the AO and assessee has no warrant in law. 22. In the firm

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

151.' The High Court relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Banarsi Debi v. ΙΤΟ [1964] 53 ITR 100 (SC) where the validity of a notice under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922 and the scope of section 4 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act of 1959 by which sub-section

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

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

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