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

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 of justice

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)

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 those

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 & 234C

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 & 234C

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

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

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 & 234C

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

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

BINA KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD TONK, TONK

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

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

234C, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8.3 The re-opening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act 1961, is found to be legally valid. It is evident from the records that the Assessing Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment

RAJESH KUMAR MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.9 In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that levy of interest on any demand is consequential in nature and therefore, Ground No. 5 is dismissed. Ground No. 6 6.10 This ground is regards to initiating of penalty u/s 271

PREM CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), ALWAR

16. For the foregoing discussion and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

234C of the Act was also ordered to be charged. Tax was accordingly calculated. At the same time, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, were also sought to be initiated separately on account of concealment of income. 3 Sh. Prem Chand Gupta vs. ITO 3. Ground No. 1 raised by the appellant before

SURESH KUMAR SAINI,JAIPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

16. For the foregoing discussion and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

234C of the Act was also ordered to be charged. Tax was accordingly calculated. At the same time, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, were also sought to be initiated separately on account of concealment of income. 3 Sh. Prem Chand Gupta vs. ITO 3. Ground No. 1 raised by the appellant before

SANTOSH KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO 6(4 ) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D & 244A(3) if applicable as per rules. ITNS-150 issued, which is forming part of this order. Issue demand notice & challan accordingly. Penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

271/- was created. Against this intimation, assessee filed an application u/s 154 and in this proceedings, assessee filed a detailed reply dated 28.08.2013 explaining how its income is exempt from tax under the Act. 3 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur 4. It was submitted that the AO, however, rejected the claim

S R AGRO TECH,BEHROR vs. ITO, WARD, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

234C 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that in this case the return declaring total income of Rs.(-)18,68,187/- for the assessment year 2017-18 had been filed by the assessee on 31-10-2017. The case of the assessee was selected under complete Scrutiny through CASS with remarks’’(i) cash deposit during the demonetization period

JARINA BEGUM,KOTA vs. ITO WARD -1(4), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 148/144 of the Income Tax Act,\n[Here in after referred as “Act”] by the AO.\n2\nITA No. 675/JPR/2023\nJarina Begum. vs.ITO\n2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following\ngrounds:-\n“1. The impugned order u/s 148/144 dated 28.06.2019 is bad in law\nand on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various

RADHESHYAM MEENA,RAJGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

9. In view of the discussion and reasons recorded above, in the interest of justice, we hereby allow the appeal for statistical purposes, set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A)

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

234C is charged as per law, as applicable in Assessee’s case. Issue notice of demand and challan accordingly.” Since Assessing Officer felt satisfied that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income for the year under consideration, it was a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred