SHRI OM PRAKASH MODI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 196/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Modi, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar Central Circle-2, (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acfpm 8683 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 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)-4, Jaipur Dated 01/01/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271Aab Imposed At Rs. 3,75,00,000/-, Arbitrarily, Thus The Order So Passed Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Has Duly Disclosed In The Statements U/S 132(4) & The Mode & Manner Was Also Explained, Further Due Tax Was Also Paid, Therefore, The Penalty Of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- So Levied Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed On Additional Income Of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- Duly Offered

271 AAB of the Act and penalty levied thereon is liable to be set aside.” 18. It has been contended by the ld AR that the AO completed the assessment by accepting the income declared by the assessee including the income of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- and penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB were initiated. While levying the penalty

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 separately. 3. The appellant was requested repeatedly to file reply. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notice dated 03/02/2021. 06/02/2023, 23/02/2023 & 06/03/2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not comply with the notices and hence made

CHAND MONAMMAD,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER

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

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

234B is mandatory and not discretionary as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala in 252 ITR 1 and CIT Vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers in 259 ITR 449. For the purpose of statistics, this Ground of Appeal is hereby dismissed. 7.5 GOA No. 4: Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). This GOA is premature

VINOD KUMAR CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) read with section

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

234B and 234C of the Act. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not issuing directions for dropping penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest

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)

234B and 234C and penalties under Section 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

DHARAMPAL SINGH,NEEMKATHANA vs. ITO, NEEMKATHANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Final Hearing Of Appeal.”

section 69 of the I.T. Act 1961 and added bank in the total income the assessee. As the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed the income thereby, penalty proceeding U/S 271 (1) (c) are being initiated separately. With these remarks total income is computed as income Income as returned Nil Income from other sources as discussed above

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B

GCK STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

penalty initiated\nunder Section 271(1)(c).\"\n4.\nWe note from the submission of the Ld AR vehemently argued that the\ncase of the assessee is squarely covered by the catena of Judgments filed before\nus and pointed out that the issue under reopening is completely time – barred. In\nsupport of the said contention the Learned Authorized Representative pointed

RAVINDRA GAUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

section 11588E as discussed above in the order for the year under consideration the assessee is liable to pay penalty u's 271 (1)(c) on the aggregate amount of Rs. 86,00,000/- for which separate proceedings are being initiated. Being not filing the (TR u/s 139(1) of the IT Act 1961 for the year under consideration

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271B\nread with section 274 of the Act.\nSince the ground relating to initiation of penalty is consequential to the\nassessment, therefore the same does not need any adjudication and is\naccordingly disposed.\nGround No. 7\n7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter grounds of appeal.\nThe above ground

BHAGVAN SAHAY MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(1), JAIPUR

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

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) on 14.03.23. 6. Further on similar grounds the case was also decided by Id. CIT(A) on 02.01.25 as no response could be furnished by the erstwhile counsel of the assessee. 7. Thereafter, the assessee being disheartened by the negligence as well as lack of proper

YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c), which is\nunjustified, unwarranted and bad in law.\n8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the\ncharge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

271 AAC. The penalty proceedings are premature and bad in law as the substantive additions are disputed and not sustainable. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential in nature. The interest charges are not sustainable once the additions

JAGAT SINGH RATHORE,TONK vs. ITO WD 7(2), , JAIPUR

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

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

271 was initiated on account of the cash receipt/ repayment and penalty u/s 271D and 271E have been imposed. In these cases, the Hon’ble Tribunals and courts have recorded findings. The department has accepted the plea of the assessee that they with the such a receipts were not in a nature of loan or deposits but were a capital

S R AUTOMOBILES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

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

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

section 40A(3) is applicable. In view of these facts, expenses amounting to Rs.13,30,000/- is hereby disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee has concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated separately on this

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

234B of the Act. The appellant totally denies\nits liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so\ncharged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be\ndeleted in full.\n7.\nThe appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the\ngrounds of the appeal on or before the date