ITO,JAIPUR vs. ABDUL SAMI, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 22/07/2013. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 20,52,500/- in saving bank account of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and used credit card for making payments of bills totaling

ABDUL SAMI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 22/07/2013. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 20,52,500/- in saving bank account of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and used credit card for making payments of bills totaling

M/S. LAXMINATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,CHURU. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.”

penalty of Rs. 1,05,000/- under the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing. 5. The petitioner prays for justice & relief.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed

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

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

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

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

234C & u/s 234D of the Act. Issued penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of Income determined u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty notice u/s 271F r.w.s. 274 issued for non-compliance of the provisions of section

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 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 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

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

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

234C. Since we have quashed Ground No. 1, therefore, this ground being consequential in nature has become infructuous. Thus the appeal of the assessee in ITA No484/JP/2019 is allowed. 6.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 485/JP/2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 for adjudication. 7.1 The Ground No. 1 of the assessee

BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or During The Course Of The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Penalty notices u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) issued. 5. In first appeal the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- “(vi) I have duly considered the submission of the appellant, assessment order, remand report and the material placed on record. The appellant has itself stated that he is earning income from

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

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 11) The appellant trust craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. ITA NO. 423/JP/2017 (Assessee) : 1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is perverse, arbitrary

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 11) The appellant trust craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. ITA NO. 423/JP/2017 (Assessee) : 1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is perverse, arbitrary

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 11) The appellant trust craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. ITA NO. 423/JP/2017 (Assessee) : 1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is perverse, arbitrary

ITO, KOTA vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 11) The appellant trust craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. ITA NO. 423/JP/2017 (Assessee) : 1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is perverse, arbitrary

ACIT, KOTA vs. URBAN IMPROVEMNT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 11) The appellant trust craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. ITA NO. 423/JP/2017 (Assessee) : 1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is perverse, arbitrary

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