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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271AAA were applicable with respect to undisclosed income found during course of search and declared by assessee in her return of income for assessment year 2010- 11— AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAA during assessment proceedings on ground that assessee had not specified manner in which undisclosed income was earned also failed to substantiate, it and accordingly, imposed penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271AAA were applicable with respect to undisclosed income found during course of search and declared by assessee in her return of income for assessment year 2010- 11— AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAA during assessment proceedings on ground that assessee had not specified manner in which undisclosed income was earned also failed to substantiate, it and accordingly, imposed penalty

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)

271(1)(c) was initiated by the Id. AO in order u/s. 143(3). The first appeal of the assessee was dismissed (P.B. pages 15 to 23) whereas the second appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT was partly allowed (P.B. pages 24 to 35) with direction to allow deduction @ 100% under section 10A of Act on enhanced profit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI vs. SHRI PRATAP SINGH TANWAR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

206 (Lucknow) (Trib.) Only addition made by AO for which penalty is imposed is addition on account of two unsecured loans which was made u/s 68. Both persons have given confirmation, which is available in paper book. It is true that unsecured loan, claimed to have been received by assessee, was not accepted by revenue. Assessee could not prove ingredients

MINING ENGINEER, MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT (STATE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT),ALWAR vs. CIT (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

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

271 CA of the Act) cuke The Mining Engineer The JCIT (TDS) Vs. Mines & Geology Department Jaipur (State Govt. Department), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCM 5794 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 326 & 327/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 (u/s 206C

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

271(1)(b) of the Act on 15.10.2013 for non compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1 )/143(2) of the Act. Another, penalty under Section 272A(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, Range for non compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely