SHRI SHYAM SUNDER DUSEJA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(3), JAIPUR, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied is hereby directed to be deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee

section 50C by taking the sale consideration of Rs. 6,10,313/- as adopted by stamp duty authority as against actual sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- received by the assessee resulting in the additional tax liability which has been duly paid, however, the same has been made the basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1

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

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

SHRI AVNISH BANSAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied in both the cases is hereby directed to be deleted

u/s 50C at Rs 1,72,43,350 and investment in house property amounting to Rs 41,60,100 which was claimed under section 54 of the Act. The computation so filed therefore clearly discloses the nature and specifics of the property so sold and subsequent purchase of house property by the assessee. There is thus proper disclosure

PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. Ground No. 1 Is Regarding Validity Of Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Ground Of Defective Initiation Of Proceedings

271(1)(c) of the Act has again specified the charges as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, merely because show cause notice contains both charges without striking off the irrelevant part will not vitiate the penalty proceedings. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material

JHABAR SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

1,07,40,030/- on the basis of DLC rate by invoking the provision of Section 50C. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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

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

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

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI SAIWAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-3, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat

section 50C and thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground 3 ITA 1259/JP/2018 Smt. Krishna Devi

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

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

1. The Ld. AO has erred in law while reopening the assessment u/s\n147 as the transaction was duly declared in the return of income filed by\nthe assessee. The reopening of the assessment was also illegal as no\nmandatory approval was taken of the PCIT u/s 151 before issuing the\nnotice u/s 148. The action

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

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,13,23,461/- out of total addition of Rs. 2,76,51,300/- by applying the provision of Section 50C of the income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The ld ITO erred in levying interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The ld. ITO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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.

50C ignoring the fact that transfer was made vide sale agreement on dated 22.01.2006. 12. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law also ld. Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in modifying the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act to the order passed u/s 147/144 of the Act without giving any opportunity for same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

section 50C of the Act by adopting the sale consideration as taken by the stamp duty authorities for the purpose of charging stamp duty. The above addition was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) as well as by the Hon’ble ITAT. Subsequently, the AO has imposed a penalty of Rs.21,00,000/- u/s. 271(1