KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

19-10-2015 for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring\na total income at Rs.1,05,94,050/-. Thus, the AO completed the\nassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A vide order dated 28-12-2016 at a total\nincome of Rs.1,40,62,140/-. Further, the order u/s 154 of the Act was also\nmade

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

19-10-2015 for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring\na total income at Rs.1,05,94,050/-. Thus, the AO completed the\nassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A vide order dated 28-12-2016 at a total\nincome of Rs.1,40,62,140/-. Further, the order u/s 154 of the Act was also\nmade

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,01,50,594/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 4 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

19,200/-\nwherein the income as offered in the initial return of income filed under section 139(1) was again repeated i.e. the return of income declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act and 139(1) of the Act are same.\nIn the penalty order the main contention of the Learned Assessing Officer is that

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

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

19,200/-\nwherein the income as offered in the initial return of income filed under section\n139(1) was again repeated i.e. the return of income declared in the return filed\nunder section 153A of the Act and 139(1) of the Act are same.\nIn the penalty order the main contention of the Learned Assessing Officer is that\nhad

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

2,00,00,000 | Nil | Nil\n| Development of Stones\n| (CDOS)\n| Prior period expenses | 36,44,553 | Nil | Nil\n| CSR expenses | 40,42,000 | 40,42,000 | 40,42,000\n| Deduction u/s 80IA | 10,70,76,173 | Nil | Nil\n| Disallowance u/s 14A | 37,19,337 | 37,19,337 | 37,19,337\n| Service Tax Receivable

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which limb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s 274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income or furnishing

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2-11) and whereby disallowance of Rs.15,672/-\nin\nrespect of deduction u/s 80IB and disallowance of Rs.1,44,263/- made u/s 40(a)(ia)\nhas been deleted. Further, tradition addition of Rs. 3,00,000 which is being\nconfirmed by ld. CIT(A) is solely on estimate basis and accordingly no penalty\nwas levied by ld. AO on this

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

2) No penalty under the provisions of 53[section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2) Kolkatta held as under: “ 8. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows: 9. The notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 on 31.03.215 by the Assessing Officer has been extracted

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, 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. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

271(1)(C), 271A and 271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

2. M/s. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT, Cochin ( on 21-08-2001 Appeal (Civil) 6465 of 2000 [(2001) 251 ITR 99]- pages 23 to 27. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS which was finalized u/s

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of [section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 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

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf.\nRefer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority