DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 274 do so. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 2. The brief facts leading to the controversy are that the assessee is engaged in the business of financing and is a Director

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 274 do so. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 2. The brief facts leading to the controversy are that the assessee is engaged in the business of financing and is a Director

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

46A. Section 250 (4) empowers the CIT (A) to make further inquiries on its own or\nto direct the AO to make further inquiry and to report him, which also empower the CIT\n(A) to direct the production of any document / the examination of witness, to enable him\nto dispose of the appeal. Thus, the legislative intent is quite

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

46A. Section 250 (4) empowers the CIT (A) to make further inquiries on its own or\nto direct the AO to make further inquiry and to report him, which also empower the CIT\n(A) to direct the production of any document / the examination of witness, to enable him\nto dispose of the appeal. Thus, the legislative intent is quite

SUBHASH CHAND PATNI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

section 50C, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is unsustainable. (copy of all judgements are enclosed) GROUND NO.2: ERRONEOUS ACTION OF LEVY OF PENATLY U/S. 271(1)(C) WITHOUT ASCERTAINING CORRECT FACTS OF CASE 9 Subhash Chand Patni vs. ITO, Jaipur 1. That facts of the case are that appellant has got registered a sale deed of sale of agricultural land

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Department in the respective appeals are as under:- DCIT (INTL. TAX), JAIPUR VS SHRI DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR ‘’I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition

DCIT,INT.TAX, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Department in the respective appeals are as under:- DCIT (INTL. TAX), JAIPUR VS SHRI DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR ‘’I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition

ABDUL SAMI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

46A(1) of the IT Rules and letter send to the AO was only for clarification on the issue of valid service of notice to the assessee in the proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act.” 3. Only effective ground is against deleting the addition of Rs. 29,59,375/- out of total addition of Rs. 32,71,850/- confirming

ITO,JAIPUR vs. ABDUL SAMI, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

46A(1) of the IT Rules and letter send to the AO was only for clarification on the issue of valid service of notice to the assessee in the proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act.” 3. Only effective ground is against deleting the addition of Rs. 29,59,375/- out of total addition of Rs. 32,71,850/- confirming

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

NITIN PAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

section 54B was restricted to Rs. 4,79,333/- as shown in the original return of income. The income of the assessee was accordingly computed determining the long term capital gain of Rs. 20,39,357/- as against Rs. 3,68,526/- shown by the assessee in its original return of income. The AO simultaneously initiated the penalty proceeding u/s

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

section 271(1)(c) of the act. – Penalty Appeal.\nThat the Penalty is connected with Quantum & related to Ground of Appeal No 1 to 3,\nsince the Humble Appellant sold Agricultural Land which is situated in Rural Area at\nVillage Badraitha, Kanchanpur Tehsil Bari Distt Dholpur. The Land situated at Village\nBadraitha is 15 Km from Bari which is Tehsil

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 274 of the Act against the assessee in a mechanical manner. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing. 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 636 days in filing of the appeal

MEENA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 147 read with 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 31/03/2007. While framing the assessment, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently, the penalty was imposed vide order dated 25/03/2013. The Assessing Officer has recorded the followings facts as under:- “9. The assessee

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.

46A of the Act despite the fact that assessee has filed the request for accepting the additional evidence and therefore also erred in not given any cognizance to the same. 3 ITA 264/JP/2017_ Ramakant Sharma Vs ITO 10. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law also ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in holding that the transfer

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

271(1)(b) of the Act on 15.10.2013 for non compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1 )/143(2) of the Act. Another, penalty under Section 272A(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, Range for non compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. SUJEET SINGH CHOUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions and the C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalincome Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur – 302 005 ...... Appellant Vs.

u/s. 144 of the Act in absence of any details or documents or books of accounts furnished before him. At the appellate stage, the assessee had duly submitted audited final accounts, a copy of tax audit report dated:10.09.2017, entire set of VAT Return, copies of ledgers of various expenses, copies of confirmation of accounts in respect of certain sundry

JHUNJHUNBALAJI MOTORS PVT.LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT CIRCLE-JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

u/s 46A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. In the background of the appellant's request, Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules is reproduced for the sake of clarity: - 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral

JHUNJHUNBALJI MOTORS PVT.LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

u/s 46A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. In the background of the appellant's request, Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules is reproduced for the sake of clarity: - 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral