PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S R.P.WOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., , AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act 1961, the assessee was liable to pay the amount of tax evaded as penalty on the undisclosed income of the specified previous year by way of penalty in addition to tax payable by it as the undisclosed income was neither declared in the ITR filed u/s

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act 1961, the assessee was liable to pay the amount of tax evaded as penalty on the undisclosed income of the specified previous year by way of penalty in addition to tax payable by it as the undisclosed income was neither declared in the ITR filed u/s

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

159/- for calculation of capital gain. Record reveals that against the said disallowance of cost of acquisition the assessee has not challenged that quantum addition made by the ld.AO and since that being the fact the ld. AO for the said disallowance initiated penalty proceeding as per the provision of section 270A of the Act and thereby ordered to levy

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

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

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)

159 taxmann.com 8 (Raipur - Trib.)/[2023] 108 ITR(T) 645 (Raipur Trib.) [18-09-2023] decided similar issue. The head notes of the decision are as under- "Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Bank deposit) Assessment year 2017-18 During demonetization period, assessee-society deposited certain sum in its bank account Since assessee didn't respond

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)

159 taxmann.com 8 (Raipur - Trib.)/[2023] 108 ITR(T) 645 (Raipur Trib.) [18-09-2023] decided similar issue. The head notes of the decision are as under- "Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Bank deposit) Assessment year 2017-18 During demonetization period, assessee-society deposited certain sum in its bank account Since assessee didn't respond

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

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

159 & 160/JPR/2024\nACIT vs. Nash Fashion (India) Ltd.\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 28/04/2025\nआदेश/ ORDER\nPER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.\nThe present bunch of three appeals relates the same assessee and\neven the assessment year is same. One relates to the quantum addition and\nsecond relates to levy of penalty which is filed by assessee as well

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

penalty of Rs.\n203275/- U/s 271(1)(C ).\n5. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing.\n6. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the\ntime of hearing.\nGROUNDS OF APPEAL\n1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. NASH FASHION(INDIA) LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

section 80G of the Act. ACIT vs. Nash Fashion (India) Ltd. 10. In the present case, the ld AR has contended that on the advise of the Hospital authorities, the assessee issued a cheque in favour of the manufacturers to directly supply the desired machinery and equipments to Hospitals. After getting the cheque from the assessee, the manufacturers directly sent

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

section 80G of the Act. ACIT vs. Nash Fashion (India) Ltd. 10. In the present case, the ld AR has contended that on the advise of the Hospital authorities, the assessee issued a cheque in favour of the manufacturers to directly supply the desired machinery and equipments to Hospitals. After getting the cheque from the assessee, the manufacturers directly sent