VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

249 ITR 0125 (Guj-HC) 1.14. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vatika Construction (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 471 (Delhi), in which it has been held that “…Head Notes - Section 271(1)(c), read with sections 40A(3) and 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

section 271(1)(c), the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The burden shifts to the assessee only if he fails to offer any explanation for the undisclosed income or offers an explanation which is found to be false by the assessing authority

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c). In this case, in the quantum proceedings, ld. AO made addition on account of bogus purchases. Ld. CIT (A) disallowed the loss claimed by the Assessee on sale of some of the unbranded items out of the purported purchases. Further certain sum was added as additional income by applying the estimated gross profit rate

RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales tax Act, the court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. This court, therefore

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 20.07.2023 submitted vide point no. 14 that deduction of interest was claimed on borrowing from IDFC first bank and PNB housing and the statement of the loan was submitted. Thus, the claim of the assessee was supported by the evidence. It was the decision of the assessee not to challenge the disallowance even

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

RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

penalty\nwas passed by the ITO Wd. 4(1), Jaipur on 25.12.2016. The appellant\nhas e-filed the appeal against the order of AO u/s. 143(3) dated\n25.12.2016 vide Form No. 35 on 17.12.2018. It is seen that there is a\ndelay in filing of appeal. It has been filed beyond the period of 30 days\nas stipulated u/s

KISHAN LAL MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), 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)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are being initiated.” 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue:- “2.12. The Courts

DHARMENDRA KUMAR,BHANWARGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAN

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

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

271(1)(c) is initiated. The assessee has not filed his return of income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271F is initiated. Tax u/s 115BBE is charged on Rs.16,03,000/- as per the addition is made u/s 69A. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal as per the provisions of Section 249

MUKESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n28/05/2024

u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act dated 18.10.2022 and dated\n05.01.2023]. Therefore, no fault could be found with the order of the\nAO given the circumstances in which he was placed. Ground Nos. 1\nto 9 of appeal are dismissed.\n5.4. In Ground No. 10, it is stated that the appellant craves leave to\nadd, amend, or delete

SARDAR SINGH RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5), 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)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed for Rs. 6,63,370/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 5. The assessee has filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving his following relevant findings on the issues:- “ The appellant has filed

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)

249 - DIT V/s Society for Worldwide Inter Bank Financial Telecommunications (Delhi) (Case laws Paper book pages 49-50) Assessment - Enquiry - Notice - Only upon Examination of Return - Notice u/s 143(2) served upon assessee before filing of Return - Not valid - Assessment completed on basis of Notice invalid - Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 143(2) 90 DTR 289 - Saptha Giri Finance & Investments

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

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

271(1)(b) of the IT Act was issued on\n16.05.2019 and asked the asssessee “that you have not complied\nto the notices issued to you, please show cause why a penalty u/s\n271(1)(b) for failure to furnish return, comply notices and\nconcealment of income may not be imposed. You are once again\nrequested to comply the notices

THE KEKRI COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Penalty u/s 271(1)© of Rs.1,01,469/- is bad in law.’’ THE KEKRI COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY VS ITO, WARD 2(3), AJMER 2.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi are as under:- ‘’12. The appellant has failed in explaining the delay in filing the appeal

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act being the penalty on\nthe assessed income. Since we have set aside the order of the assessment\nto reframed the consequential issue of levy of penalty also be decided\nbased on the outcomes of the quantum proceedings. Thus, the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no. 185/JP/2022 becomes infructuous at this stage

JHUNJHUNBALJI MOTORS PVT.LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

penalty under section 271.\nThe following issues arise. -\n(i) The appellant claims to have been prevented by sufficient cause from\nproducing the evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal. The sufficient\ncause is stated to health reasons of the Director of the assessee company and\nhis wife. In this regard, it is noted that the appellant

JHUNJHUNBALAJI MOTORS PVT.LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT CIRCLE-JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

penalty under section 271.\nThe following issues arise. -\n(i) The appellant claims to have been prevented by sufficient cause from\nproducing the evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal. The sufficient\ncause is stated to health reasons of the Director of the assessee company and\nhis wife. In this regard, it is noted that the appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r/w 274 are initiated separately 3.3 Revocable Trust:- On perusal of the trust deed it is noticed that in the trust deed there is no clause which can justify the recoverability of the trust as such the trust is held to be a revocable trust which is not eligible to become public/charitable trust