SHRI MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 5 is clearly attracted in the instant case and the same should be sustained. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The first issue that arise for consideration is whether explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) is attracted in the instant case which has been

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty be imposed, independently of the quantum proceedings. ii. The first and foremost requirement of Section 69 is establishing of fact that the investment is really and conclusively made with the support of direct and cogent material on record. Neither in quantum proceedings nor even in penalty proceedings, any such evidence

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

u/s 139(1) on 31.07.2010 for the such financial year 2009- 10, such income has not been disclosed. Such income has been disclosed Vs. ACIT Circle-2,Jaipur subsequently in the revised return filed under section 139(5) on 27.12.2010 and thereafter, in the return filed pursuance to issuance of notice under 153A on 21.06.2011. No specific arguments have been

SHRI KANHEYA LAL,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c) of the Act by filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) however, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty while passing the impugned order. The submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) as well before the tribunal are reproduced as under:- “It is humbly requested that in this case the decision

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.

168 ITR 705 SC, it was held that penalty could not be imposed merely because the 'A' agreed to be assessed on a particular income. The decision of the apex court was based on the provisions as they were originally enacted. The view taken by the division be nch in the cas e of Dilip N. Shroff was doubted

M/S SILVER AND ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

271(1) are initiated by the assessing authority during the course of the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3), the impugned penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB are fully justified and are initiated in accordance with law. We find that the order of the ITAT cannot sustain, therefore, the same is set aside and the penalty orders under Section 271AAB

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)

u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271 and 271AAB of the I.T.Act,1961 that undisclosed income detected pertains to specified previous year and in the assessment order, the AO had made addition only on account of undisclosed income found during

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)

u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271 and 271AAB of the I.T.Act,1961 that undisclosed income detected pertains to specified previous year and in the assessment order, the AO had made addition only on account of undisclosed income found during

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)

u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271 and 271AAB of the I.T.Act,1961 that undisclosed income detected pertains to specified previous year and in the assessment order, the AO had made addition only on account of undisclosed income found during

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

u/s 271(1)c) has undergone a substantial change after the insertion of Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) w.e.f. 01.04.1976. Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption that as and when any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income the same shall be deemed or represent the income in respect of which

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) without considering the fresh evidence, its order was invalid and the matter was remanded. In the light of this proposition of law it is seen that the penalty order deals with the evidence and submissions of the appellant most superficially and without application of mind, in these words: "10. I have considered the reply

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law and also that the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. However if we look at the operative portion of the Assessment order, it is clear that the A.O had mentioned in his order that The original return filed

MANISH GOYAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 imposed by the learned assessing officer (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer). The order of imposing penalty sustained Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central Jaipur is totally bad case. Hence deserves to be deleted in full. The appellant prays your honour to indulgence, and, amend alter, delete

SHAKTI STONEX,INDUSTRIAL AREA KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271 and 271AAB of the I.T.Act,1961 that undisclosed income 8 Shakti Stonex vs. DCIT detected pertains to specified previous year and in the assessment order, the AO had made addition only on account

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)

section 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)

section 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

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 read with\nsection 144 of the IT Act, 1961, and allow the appeal of the assessee.\n8. Once, we quash the proceeding U/s 147 of the Act, therefore, there is no\nneed to adjudicate the other grounds raised in this appeal.\nOn merits :\n9. At the very outset, we find from the case file that the assessee

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

168 (JD), CIT vs.\nLunard Diamond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del.). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in\ncase of CIT vs. Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd. 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212 (Raj.) has\nheld that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than\nthe statement given by the creditor before the AO. The Coordinate

AMAN GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from National E assessment Centre – Delhi on 11.03.2021. The Appellant has submittedsuitable reply mentioning that the subsidy received from government has already offered for Taxation in the next assessment year when all the conditions were satisfied related to subsidy and hence intention of the assesse was not to conceal