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

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

249 ITR 216 (SC). It is also settled law that the AO must act honestly on the material before him and not vindictively, capriciously, or arbitrarily as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurumukh Singh Vs CIT 12 ITR 393, 427 (FB), Dakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775. The taxing authority should

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 are being initiated separately. 11. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. “ Taking an over view of the sequence of events, information and evidences before the A.O, there is no doubt that

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 are being initiated separately. 11. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. “ Taking an over view of the sequence of events, information and evidences before the A.O, there is no doubt that

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

3) of the I.T. Act had been completed on 15-12-2018 at the total income of Rs.12,77,950/-. Hence, the AO initiated penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act on the basis that the assessee had concealed the income while filing the return of income and ultimately levied penalty amounting to Rs.2.60 lacs. In first appeal

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

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

3. Penalty should not have been imposed as the additions made in the quantum proceedings – It is submitted that the penalty should not have been imposed as they are entirely based on the additions made in the quantum proceedings. Simply because additions have been sustained it was argued does not automatically lead to the levy of penalty. Addressing the basis

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

3. Penalty should not have been imposed as the additions made in the quantum proceedings – It is submitted that the penalty should not have been imposed as they are entirely based on the additions made in the quantum proceedings. Simply because additions have been sustained it was argued does not automatically lead to the levy of penalty. Addressing the basis

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

3. Penalty should not have been imposed as the additions made in the quantum proceedings – It is submitted that the penalty should not have been imposed as they are entirely based on the additions made in the quantum proceedings. Simply because additions have been sustained it was argued does not automatically lead to the levy of penalty. Addressing the basis

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

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

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

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)

3 of the paper book] wherein there was not specified allegation as to under which limb they intend to levy the penalty. He also supported the case law on the argument that was advanced before us. 8. The ld DR on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order

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