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)

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 8 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 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

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

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

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

40A(3) ITAT Total 38,28,001/- 5 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO In view of the items at S.No. 1 & 3 above being set-aside back to the file of the AO, the ITO, Ward 3(1) passed an order u/s 143(3)/250/set-aside on 06.12.2010 at a total income

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3)/148 at Rs. 59,24,480/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charge interest u/s 234 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Prepare ITNS-150 which enclosed with this order. Issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for concealing particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Being aggrieved

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 4.3 In ITA No. 1045/JPR/2024 the assessee

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 4.3 In ITA No. 1045/JPR/2024 the assessee

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)

3), Rs.66,466/- on account of interest on TDS and Rs.19,59,722/- on account of depreciation by alleging that both were in the nature of under reporting due to misreporting. So far as disallowance on account of depreciation is concerned, it is submitted that assessee was holding certain house properties and rental income therefrom was being shown under

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)

3), Rs.66,466/- on account of interest on TDS and Rs.19,59,722/- on account of depreciation by alleging that both were in the nature of under reporting due to misreporting. So far as disallowance on account of depreciation is concerned, it is submitted that assessee was holding certain house properties and rental income therefrom was being shown under

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

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.”

3. Tax sought to be evaded (2-1) 4,99,321/- 4. Minimum penalty 100% of above 4,99,321/- 5. Maximum Penalty 300% of above 14,97,963/- 6. Penalty imposed 4,99,321/- 4.2 During the appellate proceeding the appellant has filed written submission as under and also argued the case on the same basis. " In the present

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

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. Accordingly, ITAT hold that the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

271 of the Act. The ld AR has contended that the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) are ex-facie unsustainable in law. The ld AR has then contended that Section 251 of the Act limits power of enhancement of ld. CIT(A) to the aspects considered by the Assessing Officer and not to pickup any new source

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

271 of the Act. The ld AR has contended that the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) are ex-facie unsustainable in law. The ld AR has then contended that Section 251 of the Act limits power of enhancement of ld. CIT(A) to the aspects considered by the Assessing Officer and not to pickup any new source