RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

160/- against which he has shown Rs. 39,99,567/- which is taken in multi commodity transaction and loss of Rs. 22,548/- in Future and Options (F&O) totaling to Rs. 40,22,115/- under the head income from business and profession. The report reveals total turnover of Rs. 1,59,27,862/- which is the total of Mark

RAM KISHORE MEENA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD, MORAK, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

160/- in the relevant assessment year and confirmed the disallowance of Rs.3.72.43,045/- The order of the CIT(A) was confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT. Later the assessing officer has imposed penalty of Rs. 1,26,58,910/- u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5.1.5 In it's submission the appellant has relied

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

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) was passed on 22.03.2013. 3. That ,as the facts narrated above, which are mentioned in the penalty order, out of the 3 additions on which penalty has been levied, 2 , namely those of Rs. 2,79,000/-(unsecured loans below Rs. 20,000/- taken in cash ) and of Rs. 10,05,301/- (advances against booking

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

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)

Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee is an NRI residing in Japan from last 25 years and having his own business at Japan and not filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2015-16 being no taxable income in India originally

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)

Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee is an NRI residing in Japan from last 25 years and having his own business at Japan and not filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2015-16 being no taxable income in India originally

SHARDUL SINGH,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICER JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied is hereby dropped with no orders to cost

Bench: passing the order u/s 271 (1) (c) 4 The AO imposed penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) without any ESTABLISHING Submission of A. Inaccurate facts/Statements B. without Establishing CONCEALMENT OF INCOME as all mentioned by him was fetched by Submission of the Assessee and without doing any Act to take correct decision to impose penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) 5. The AO not considered the Submitted Decisions of relavant courts furnished by the Assessee in his favour.” 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that asse

u/s 271 (1)(c) 5. The AO not considered the Submitted Decisions of relavant courts furnished by the Assessee in his favour.’’ 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that assessee being a retired salaried Person filed return of income, declaring salary, income of Rs. 4,30,29/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the income

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

section 271(1)(c). As a result, there was no clarity whether the\nnotice was for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. He has filed copies of those notices. For his contention,\nassessee has relied on judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 separately. 3. The appellant was requested repeatedly to file reply. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notice dated 03/02/2021. 06/02/2023, 23/02/2023 & 06/03/2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not comply with the notices and hence made

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

penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval etc. to the assessee or any other person, on or after the 01.10.2019 unless a computer generated DIN has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication. We note that para 3 of the said circular provides for certain exceptional circumstances when the communication is issued manually, in which case such manually

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

penalty of Rs. 4,17,900/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed.” 4. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. CIT(A), the present appeal filed against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated in para 2 above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

271(1)(c), the penalty. The action is unjustified. illegal or\nexcessive and deserves to be deleted in full.\n\n6.1 The ground is general in nature. The grounds are pre-matture as these are\nagainst mere initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings are\nindependent proceedings and the appellant is required to make his submissions\nbefore the appropriate authority during

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2017-18 to 2018-19 (as applicable) is leviable in these cases. The levy of penalty is considered separately in this order.” Thus the Hon’ble Settlement Commission has also, in principle, accepted that

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2017-18 to 2018-19 (as applicable) is leviable in these cases. The levy of penalty is considered separately in this order.” Thus the Hon’ble Settlement Commission has also, in principle, accepted that

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2017-18 to 2018-19 (as applicable) is leviable in these cases. The levy of penalty is considered separately in this order.” Thus the Hon’ble Settlement Commission has also, in principle, accepted that