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.

249 - DIT V/s Society for Worldwide Inter Bank Financial Telecommunications (Delhi) (Case laws 14 ITA 264/JP/2017_ Ramakant Sharma Vs ITO 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

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, 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. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice u/s 271 (1) (c) for imposing of penalty without specifying the limb for reasons to impose penalty whether 7 ITA 1266/JP/2019_ M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT for concealment of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income is not as per law and assessing officer did not have any jurisdiction

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)

2 PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LD. AO OF RS.1,37,000 U/S 271(1)(C). [Submissions apropos Ground No. 1 have been made subsequently] 1. SUBMISSION 1.1. Ld. AO passed the penalty order, imposing penalty of Rs.1,37,000, u/s 271(1)(c), on the trading additions and commission payment sustained in the quantum proceedings

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

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

u/s 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 1986-87. In case of non-submission of such evidence, it is observed that there is delay of 21 years and 179 days as per Form No. 35. Therefore, please show cause as to why the appeal should not be treated as late filed as per provisions of section 249(2

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice u/s 271 (1) (c) for imposing of penalty without specifying the limb for reasons to impose penalty whether for concealment of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income is not as per law and assessing officer did not have any jurisdiction to impose penalty u/s 271

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)—AO has not even specified in the notice the specific clause of s. 271AAB under which the penalty was sought to be levied—Word 'may' gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty, even if the assessee has made the default under the said provision—Impugned penalty was not sustainable. 2. Addition of Rs. 2

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

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate undisclosed income unless circumstantial evidence in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside books is found

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate undisclosed income unless circumstantial evidence in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside books is found

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate undisclosed income unless circumstantial evidence in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside books is found

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

u/s. 249(2) of the Act. There has been a delay of nearly 2\nyears in filing the appeal. No specific reasons for delay or request for\ncondonation has been filed by the appellant. The appellant in Col. No.\n14 of Form No. 35 has also stated that there was a delay in filing of the\nappeal. The appellant

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)

2,03,488/- being the amount of 200 % of the tax to be avoided and thereby the assessee has mis reported his income. 11 Urmila Rajendra Mundra vs. ITO Record also reveals that in the assessment proceeding the assessee while replying to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 20.07.2023 submitted vide point no. 14 that deduction

VIKRAM SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

249 ITR 0125 (Guj- HC) 9. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vatika Construction (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 ITA No.143/JP/2016_ 7 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur taxman.com 471 (Delhi) (Case Law Page 21), in which it has been held that “…Head Notes – Section 271

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)

2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 04.09.2014. Notices under section 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued on 18.02.2015 and 03.08.2015. In response to the notices, the assessee furnished the Books of account, bank statements and other details as required by the AO. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment under section

GIRDHAR GOPAL LAHOTI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KISHANGARH

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

section 211 (1)(c) deserves to be quashed and held bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the levy of penalty at Rs. 1,17,818/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the fact that there

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

M/S TRIVENI QUALITY MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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