ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s 153A), can by itself be treated as concealment warranting addition\nor penalty. The issue which is there in the appeal was already decided by the\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s SAS\nPharmaceuticals [2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi) wherein the High Court\nobserved that Section 271

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

259 Taxman\n420(Case laws compilation index PB 38-39)where SLP was dismissed against order of\nHigh Court where High Court upheld the decision of Tribunal deleting penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A because there was no evidence of\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n\nIn view of above, penalty confirmed

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

259 Taxman 420(Case laws compilation index PB 38-39)where SLP was dismissed against order of High Court where High Court upheld the decision of Tribunal deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A because there was no evidence of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In view of above, penalty confirmed

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available on record are that the Assessee initially filed ROI\n(PB 1) on 18.07.2014 (wherein the deductions u/s 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G\nwere wrongly claimed and further loss from

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available on record are that the Assessee initially filed ROI\n(PB 1) on 18.07.2014 (wherein the deductions u/s 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G\nwere wrongly claimed and further loss from

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available on record are that the Assessee initially filed ROI\n(PB 1) on 18.07.2014 (wherein the deductions u/s 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G\nwere wrongly claimed and further loss from

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available on record are that the Assessee initially filed ROI\n(PB 1) on 18.07.2014 (wherein the deductions u/s 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G\nwere wrongly claimed and further loss from

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available on record are that the Assessee initially filed ROI\n(PB 1) on 18.07.2014 (wherein the deductions u/s 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G\nwere wrongly claimed and further loss from

J C ANTIQUES AND CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are different than those applied for making or confirming the addition. It is, therefore, necessary to re-appreciate and reconsider the matter so as to find out as to whether the addition or disallowance made in the quantum proceedings actually represents the concealment on the part of the assessee as envisaged in section

CHAND MONAMMAD,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER

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

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

259 ITR 449. For the purpose of statistics, this Ground of Appeal is hereby dismissed. 7.5 GOA No. 4: Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). This GOA is premature as penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has not yet been levied and only notice has been issued. Even otherwise penalty proceedings are separate from assessmentproceedings. Hence, this

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)

U/s 147/143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court referred above (supra) is squarely covered on the facts of the present case. 13. Apart from this, we have also gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 3 SCC 259 wherein

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

penalty of Rs. 4,17,900/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed.” 4. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. CIT(A), the present appeal filed against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated in para 2 above

GCK STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

penalty initiated\nunder Section 271(1)(c).\"\n4.\nWe note from the submission of the Ld AR vehemently argued that the\ncase of the assessee is squarely covered by the catena of Judgments filed before\nus and pointed out that the issue under reopening is completely time – barred. In\nsupport of the said contention the Learned Authorized Representative pointed

MIKUNI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT,

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

Section 270A of the Act. Reliance has also been placed on the decision dated 20.2.2023 in Anjis Developers Private Limited vs. PCIT, ITA No. 959/MUM/2022. 6. Admittedly, the assessee company entered into various international transactions with its Associate Enterprises; that the case was selected for scrutiny, and referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “TPO”) u/s 92CA

MADAN SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

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

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

259 ITR 19 (SC) and M/s K.C. Mercantile Ltd. Vs. DCIT DBIT Appeal No. 292/2016 (Raj) (HC). As per information received from ITO, Ward 4(4), Jaipur the objections raised by the appellant were disposed off vide letter dated 16.10.2018 vide F. No. ITO/WVd-4(4)/JPR/2018-19/1856. Hence, the plea of the appellant that the objections have not been disposed

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

271(1)(c). The appellant’s appeal before Ld. CIT (Appeals) against above order u/s 143(3) of the A.O. is pending as on date for disposal. 1.3 Post the above, Ld. CIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 11-10-2018 to revise the above order of the A.O. Copy of the notices dated

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

259 Taxman 265 (SC) 17 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni The court has held that in the reassessment under section 147 the learned AO has to necessarily assess or reassess the income which escape assessment and on the basis of which reasonable belief was formed to reopen the assessment. It is only assessing such

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\n9. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any\nof the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.\n5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are thatsearch\nand seizure operations under section 132(1) of the Actwere