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) had been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore no penalty could be levied. (ii) Poonam Mable Pvt Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 157 TTJ 59 (Jodh) (iIi) CIT Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation

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

M/S SILVER AND ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

271(1) are initiated by the assessing authority during the course of the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3), the impugned penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB are fully justified and are initiated in accordance with law. We find that the order of the ITAT cannot sustain, therefore, the same is set aside and the penalty orders under Section 271AAB

FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

36 times during year - Considering assessee's act to be in violation of section 269SS, Assessing Officer imposed penalty upon assessee under section 271D - Tribunal found that there was business exigency forcing assessee to take cash loans for purpose of honouring its cheque commitments; creditors were genuine persons and transactions were satisfactorily explained by assessee; and there was no revenue

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

viii) Offer of income for settlement is not more than an information for the purpose of assessment and it cannot be lawfully presumed as undisclosed income of assessee without AO carrying out independent enquiries. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as facts in believing the application made

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest of justice.” (Ground wise submissions are as follows) After discussing the brief facts of the case and grounds of appeal, the appellant very humbly and respectfully begs to submit

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

Section 253(1)(c)—Name of Chartered Accountant was mentioned in petition—Counsel could not have conjured up name of Chartered Accountant—Not only period of delay has to be taken in account but also quality of explanation, the legal assistance, if any, sought and rendered to litigant, and detriment that condonation of delay would cause to the opposing party

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment of income by filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 11. Aggrieved from the said addition assessee has marched the appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has recorded his findings as under: “8. With respect to this ground I find that already a view is taken

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment of income by filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 11. Aggrieved from the said addition assessee has marched the appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has recorded his findings as under: “8. With respect to this ground I find that already a view is taken

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment of income by filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 11. Aggrieved from the said addition assessee has marched the appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has recorded his findings as under: “8. With respect to this ground I find that already a view is taken

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

u/s 80HHC of the Act. On the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer from investigation he considered the entry for export of 70 lacs as bogus. He denied benefit u/s 80HHC of the Act. Further, he made addition of Rs. 70 lacs in the income u/s 68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

viii. Vide Invoice No. 034 dated 20.03.2013, the assessee purchased Gold Ornaments amounting to Rs. 7,46,7047-weighted quantity 253. 1700 Gms. ix. Vide Invoice No. 016 dated 18.02.2013, the assessee purchased Gold Ornaments amounting to Rs. 4,49,9807- weighted quantity 151.000 Gms. The assessee purchased jewellery from M/s Shri Hari Jewellers, the details of such bills

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

viii. It was the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) Decision of CIT(A) is self explanatory. No (refer para 8.3.1 of the CIT(A) order0 that counter submission is required details of cash withdrawal submitted by the appellant are contra entries. In this regard, please note that as per accounting principle any transaction which affect cash account and bank

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

36 taxmann.com 523(Raj).\n\nLd. AO noted the reply filed by the assessee was considered but the\nsame was not acceptable because during the search the statement of Shri\nSanjay Karni, Director of the assessee company wherein he failed to\nfurnish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the parties against\n\n5\nITA Nos.480/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Karnani Solvex Private

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

viii) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the provision of section 115BBE appeared to be in the nature of compensatory provisions applicable to incomes, which were not recorded or correctly recorded at the first place but disclosed subsequently in the returns filed u/s 153A of the Act and therefore I find that the AO was justified

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

viii) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the provision of section 115BBE appeared to be in the nature of compensatory provisions applicable to incomes, which were not recorded or correctly recorded at the first place but disclosed subsequently in the returns filed u/s 153A of the Act and therefore I find that the AO was justified

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

viii) The SLP filed by the department in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. 120181 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted. The head note is as under: "II. Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (General) - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 - High Court by impugned

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

viii) The SLP filed by the department in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. 120181 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted. The head note is as under: "II. Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (General) - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 - High Court by impugned

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

viii) The SLP filed by the department in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. 120181 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted. The head note is as under: "II. Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (General) - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 - High Court by impugned