DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

penalty imposable under Chapter XXI is to be initiated and completed within two years.  Action of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act is to be taken within two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. 1.3Even where no limit is prescribed for taking an action under

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 9 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 7 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.4 and Ground

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 4. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 4. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 4. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 4. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a Search & Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

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

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

penalty notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act, in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 159 days

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

penalty notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act, in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 159 days

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

penalty notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act, in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 159 days

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

u/s 142(1). The notice u/s 142(1) required a lot of details, which was a time-consuming process. SCN was not even served Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT and after giving a very short duration to submit details u/s 142(1), order was passed with preconceived mind set. iii) The learned authority passed the order mentioning the reason

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

u/s 142(1). The notice u/s 142(1) required a lot of details, which was a time-consuming process. SCN was not even served Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT and after giving a very short duration to submit details u/s 142(1), order was passed with preconceived mind set. iii) The learned authority passed the order mentioning the reason

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act\n13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, revise and modify any of\nthe grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.\n4. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that a Search\n& Seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act, against the appellant in a mechanical\nmanner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income.\n9. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or\nbefore the hearing.\"\n4.5 In ITA No. 757/JPR/2025 the assessee has raised following\ngrounds:-\n\"1. On the facts

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act, against the appellant in a mechanical\nmanner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income.\n9. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or\nbefore the hearing.\"\n4.5 In ITA No. 757/JPR/2025 the assessee has raised following\ngrounds:-\n\"1. On the facts

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