SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

penalty of Rs. 41,16,578/- u/s 271(1)(c)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the addition was made by the Learned\nAssessing officer by adopting the stamp duty of Sub-registrar where\nthe assessee has not concealed any income.\n3. The appellant begs permission to add amend or alter any of the\ngrounds of appeal before

SMT. KRISHNA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

u/s 271(1)(c) be directed to be deleted. 2. On merit it is submitted that the quantum appeal is also fixed for hearing along with the penalty appeal before the Hon’ble Bench where assessee has explained the source of investment in agricultural land. In case the Hon’ble ITAT do not accept the submission of assessee on legality

SMT. KRISHNA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI,, ALWAR

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

u/s 271(1)(c) be directed to be deleted. 2. On merit it is submitted that the quantum appeal is also fixed for hearing along with the penalty appeal before the Hon’ble Bench where assessee has explained the source of investment in agricultural land. In case the Hon’ble ITAT do not accept the submission of assessee on legality

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

u/s 148. The action of the Ld. AO was illegal and therefore\ndeserves to be quashed or set aside.\n2\nITA NO. 1398/JP/2024\nSHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR\n2. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law while applying sec. 50C in case of\nsale of Agriculture land. The action of the Ld. A.O. was illegal

BABU LAL AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961. In view of above. I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The quantum of penalty levy in the present case is computed as under-:- S.N. Particulars Amount (In Rs.)1. 1. Addition/ concealment of capital

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

penalty of\nRs.203275/-U/s 271(1)(C).\n3. That order of learned Assessing Authority is based on assumptions and presumptions\nand against real facts of the case.\n4. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing.\n5. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before

SHARDA DEVI,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalsharda Devi, 421, Lohia Padi, Alwar- 301001. Pan No.:Adkpd7161J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(4), Alwar. ..... Respondent

u/s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and deserves to be deleted since penalty was imposed on the basis of addition made under deeming provision of section 50C

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b)\nand 271F dt. 27.05.2019 was issued at the registered office of the assessee\ncompany (APB-1). Thus the admission of additional evidence u/r 46A of Income\nTax Rules, 1962 is within the prescribed law and same is also rightly confirmed\nby the Id. CIT(A) by accepting the evidence so produced

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

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

271/- was created. Against this intimation, assessee filed an application u/s 154 and in this proceedings, assessee filed a detailed reply dated 28.08.2013 explaining how its income is exempt from tax under the Act. 3 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur 4. It was submitted that the AO, however, rejected the claim

SUSHMA SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) dated 24.09.2024 being it self without genesis and base & became illegal. It has been passed mechanical and deserves to be quashed. 4. That the assessed was earlier residing at house No. 88, Boarodi Ka Kuva Ka Rasta, gangori Bazar, Jaipur up to the middle of the year 2011. This house became dangerous building and complaints were made

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 9 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 7 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.4 and Ground

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

u/s 148 he accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income. And if he intends to do so a fresh notice

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 10 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 8 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.5, Ground

BHAGWAN SAHAY,SANGANER, JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

29. This appeal ITA No

section 50C of the Act, share of the assessee in the sale consideration came to Rs. 1,03,30,000/-, but the assessee was found to have not filed any return of income. 8. So, the Assessing Officer conducted assessment proceedings and calculated the share of Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee, as regards the above said land

BHAGWAN SAHAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

29. This appeal ITA No

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 50C of the Act, share of the assessee in the sale consideration came to Rs. 1,03,30,000/-, but the assessee was found to have not filed any return of income. 8. So, the Assessing Officer conducted assessment proceedings and calculated the share of Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee, as regards the above said land