ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 139.......\nApplying the above principle, we note that in the present case, the AO\nhas accepted the assessee's return filed u/s 139(1)& 153A of the Act where\nthe income in question were duly disclosed in the books of account and duly\noffered for tax. Therefore, no concealment can be inferred merely on the\nbasis of a loose

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty be sustained. The Id. DR vehemently submitted\nthat it is not a case of bonafide mistake or error on the part of the assessee.\nIt is a case of known facts to the assessee that there is an incorrect offering\nof the income by the assessee. The assessee only after issuance of the\nnotice u/s. 148 filed

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

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

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

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

196. The penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was imposed only after the order dated 19.09.2011 of the ld. CIT(A). The said penalty has been imposed with the stipulated time frame after the receipt of the order of Ld. CIT(A).” 6. Further, the ld. DR relied on the finding of the lower authorities

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

196 ITR 237) and also held in case JK Chemicals Limited (1994) (207 ITR 985). Accordingly expenditure of Rs. 44,81,910/- was disallowed by the AO and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated on this issue for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the assessee debited

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

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

196 TTJ (JP) 232 wherein the Honourable Tribunal has considered a period of 4 years to be reasonable for passing the order u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act. The ratio of the case is not applicable to the penalties u/s 271C etc. and is not related to the limitations provided u/s

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

196 ITR 200 Guj held as under: “ 7. The Commissioner, in the case of the firm, refused to waive penalty and interest for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 only on the ground that the returns filed beyond the prescribed period could not be considered to be returns in the eye of law. As pointed out above, since

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

196), a search proceeding were carried out on 13/02/2020 at the residential as well as business premises of “Saini Gupta Jain Group” of Ajmer. No information about such search is available with assessee company till the date of receipt of order u/s 127 dated 07/04/2021, from the office of PCIT-5, Kolkata(PB Page 46-48), wherein it has been

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD, 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the quantum appeal from which the addition had been made, has already been decided in favour of the assessee by this Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 06/04/2021 passed