SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(3) must be lifted. Respectfully, following the Judgments of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anupam Tele Services (supra), we direct the AO to delete the disallowance. Thus, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” So far as levy of penalty u/s 271E is concerned, it is stated that such penalty is undoubtedly leviable

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

section 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out in the show cause notice, whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that as far as addition of Rs. 2,79,000/- and of Rs. 10,05,301/- confirmed

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) by issue of defective notice, deserves to be hold bad in law and consequent levy of penalty be deleted. On merits, it is submitted that no belief was formed by Id. AO regarding escapement of income of Rs.21,00,000/- being exemption of special allowance claimed by assessee. AT this juncture, kind attention of your honours

VIKRAM SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(3), assessee offered that its income might be computed by applying net profit rate of 8 per cent of gross receipts – Assessing Officer having accepted assessee’s offer, made addition in terms of section 44AD – He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) – Tribunal, however, set aside said penalty order – Whether since at time to initiating

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

Section 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned Counsel

SHRI VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 40(a)(ia). ITAT 's order cancelling the penalty was sustained by the High Court. 2. CIT v HP State Forest Corporation Ltd. 120121 340 ITR 204(H.P.) In this case the Hon 'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken the view that where assessee discloses the basic facts and does not conceal any material fact, no penalty could

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that there is no allegation that assessee suppressed some facts/misrepresented the facts in any manner. In other words, complete facts were duly disclosed by assessee and no new fact was brought on record while making disallowances. Moreover, this claim of assessee was also based on certain judicial pronouncements

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that there is no allegation that assessee suppressed some facts/misrepresented the facts in any manner. In other words, complete facts were duly disclosed by assessee and no new fact was brought on record while making disallowances. Moreover, this claim of assessee was also based on certain judicial pronouncements

KALPANA JHALA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

section 282 of the Income Tax Act.1961 read with Rule 127 of the - Income Tax Rules, 1961, service of notice through email on the email address at available in return of income or last income tax return is a valid service On going through the penalty order it emerges that the notices have been issued online on ITBA with proper

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

40a(ia). 3.24 Any notice issued under section 274, read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of which

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

271 (SC) mentioned that- The AO is not duty bound the state precisely the account of suppressed turnover where it is obvious that the assessee is maintaining false accounts. The assessee cannot plead that it is the duty of the AO to prove conclusively the amount of suppressed turnover, as this fact is in his personal knowledge; ….The burden

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

section 271(1)(c). As a result, there was no clarity whether the\nnotice was for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. He has filed copies of those notices. For his contention,\nassessee has relied on judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

SMT. SWARN DURGIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1326/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke Smt. Swarn Durgia The Ito Vs. 57, Vidyut Abhiyanta Colony Ward- 6(1) Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Ahfpd 9413 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L.Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri K.C. Gupta, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

penalty shall be levied u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- ‘’17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the facts

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of the appeal during the course appellate proceedings. All the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 6. The common facts borne out of records applicable to entire bunch of appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of the appeal during the course appellate proceedings. All the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 6. The common facts borne out of records applicable to entire bunch of appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of the appeal during the course appellate proceedings. All the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 6. The common facts borne out of records applicable to entire bunch of appeals