MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and notice u/s 270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

section 158 BFA(2)) (iv) CIT V. P.H.I. Seeds India Ltd. 159 Taxman 9 (Delhi) The act does envisage or explicitly provide that in every case where return is not accepted as correct and assessment is framed at a higher income than that presented, penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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

SHRI HARISH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

section 158 BFA(2)) (iv) CIT V. P.H.I. Seeds India Ltd. 159 Taxman 9 (Delhi):- The act does envisage or explicitly provide that in every case where return is not accepted as correct and assessment is framed at a higher income than that presented, penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI VISHNU TAMBI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

section 158 BFA(2)) (iv) CIT V. P.H.I. Seeds India Ltd. 159 Taxman 9 (Delhi):- The act does envisage or explicitly provide that in every case where return is not accepted as correct and assessment is framed at a higher income than that presented, penalty proceedings u/s 271