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

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

249 ITR 216 (SC) The principle of natural justice is so fundamental that failure to observe the principle of natural justice cannot be made good in appeal. Lack of opportunity before the A O cannot be rectified by the appellate authority by giving such opportunity. 3. CCE Vs ITC Ltd (1995) 2 SCC 38 (SC) Before an assessee is made

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)

2. On facts and in the circumstances Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 4,27,938/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee prayed that since the addition mad u/s 69C of the Act was fully explainable, there was no concealment. The penalty confirmed deserves to be deleted. 3. The appellant reserves the right

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 of the Constitution, by way of section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income

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

2) of the IT Act.\n5.3. Further, the appellant has filed 10 grounds of appeal. The ground\nno.1 to 9 are interconnected to the common issue i.e. levy of penalty\nof Rs. 20,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore,\nfor the sake of convenience all these grounds of appeal are\nadjudicated together.\n5.3.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

249, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

249, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

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

249, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

249, made by the Assessing Officer on\naccount of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.\nClub Expenses\nDepartment has also challenged the impugned order whereby\nLearned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs.4,20,337/-, made by the\nAssessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club\nexpenses.\nLoans and advances\nDepartment has also challenged

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

249, made by the Assessing Officer on\naccount of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.\nClub Expenses\nDepartment has also challenged the impugned order whereby\nLearned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs.4,20,337/-, made by the\nAssessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club\nexpenses.\nLoans and advances\nDepartment has also challenged

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

249 (Amritsar) hold that provisions of sec 153C of the Act are applicable in the present case for framing the assessment, if any, which excludes the application of sec. 147 of the Act, hence, notice issued under section 148 of the Act and assessment framed in furtherance thereto under sec. 147 read with section