SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

202/- being 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 14,97,82,023/-. Even while passing the penalty order the Learned Assessing Officer has not specified the default of the assessee with ITA 421/JP/2018_ 6 Shri Ram Das Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT respect of clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 271AAB(1). The penalty order has been passed u/s 271AAB

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

202/- being 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 14,97,82,023/-. Even while passing the penalty order the Ld. Assessing Officer has not specified the default of the assessee with respect of ITA 419/JP/2018_ 6 Shri Ashok Kr. Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 271AAB(1). The penalty order has been passed u/s 271AAB

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 271(1)(c), therefore, this is a fit case for the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)." Thus it would be seen that whereas show cause notice did not contain any ground whereas penalty has been levied on the ground of concealment. In this regard it is submitted that the Karnataka High Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the IT Act read with section 274 of the IT Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. “4.2 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant's submissions

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the IT Act read with section 274 of the IT Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. “4.2 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant's submissions

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

271(1)(c). The appellant’s appeal before Ld. CIT (Appeals) against above order u/s 143(3) of the A.O. is pending as on date for disposal. 1.3 Post the above, Ld. CIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 11-10-2018 to revise the above order of the A.O. Copy of the notices dated

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Bench. However, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay With Following Prayer. ‘’’…It Is To Submit That The Cit(A) Order Was Passed On 26-10-2022 & Was Issued On The E-Mail Of The Bank. It Did Not Come To The Notice As The Bank System Marked The E-Mail As Spam Mail & Transferred The Same To Spam Folder. On Being Aware, We Requested For True & Certified Copy Of The Order & Received True & Certified Copy Of The Order On 06-04-2024 & Submitted Appeal Before Your Goodself On 31-05-2024 At Online Portal.

202, Govardhan Jaipur Colony, Opp. Sanjivini Hospital, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JPRB02554G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Shailesh Mantri, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 22/07/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

u/s 41(1) of the Act but it is still left open for the assessing authority to examine and opportunity is available before the assessing authority to produce the creditor and if unable to give the exact address, it will be open for the assessing authority to add back the same as per law. We do not find any substantial

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

penalty under section 271. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Rule 46A(3), the Learned CIT(A), before taking into account the additional evidences furnished by the assessee allowed an opportunity to the Learned Assessing Officer by calling a remand report. The Learned Assessing Officer submitted remand report under letter dated 30 ITA No. 324/JP/2024 & CO No. 12/JP/2024 DCIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. The material found in the search may be a ground for notice and assessment under Section 153A of the Act but that would not efface or terminate all the consequence, which has arisen out of the regular assessment or reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 9 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 7 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.4 and Ground

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground