DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

section 270A was not\nmaintainable.\nfor\npurpose\n3.5 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO\nand confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be cancelled.\n•\nGround-4 & 5_The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty order passed\nby the AO, on deemed income u/s 68 of the Income

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

penalty notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act, in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 159 days

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

penalty notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act, in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 159 days

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

penalty notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act, in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 159 days

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

69C of the Act, on\naccount of alleged payment of LIC premium from unexplained sources\nwithout appreciating the facts and circumstances the right perspective and in\nabsensce of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of\nsearch proceedings. Thus, the addition so made deserve to be deleted\nsummarily.\n8. On the facts and in the circumstances

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

69C of the Act, on\naccount of alleged payment of LIC premium from unexplained sources\nwithout appreciating the facts and circumstances the right perspective and in\nab-sence of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of\nsearch proceedings. Thus, the addition so made deserve to be deleted\nsummarily.\n8. On the facts and in the circumstances

ANSHUL JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

69C and u/s 69\nrespectively. Assessment was finally completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C\nassessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)\nwere also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee\npreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the\nappeal

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

69C and u/s 69\nrespectively. Assessment was finally completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C\nassessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)\nwere also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee\npreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the\nappeal

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

69C and u/s 69\nrespectively. Assessment was finally completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C\nassessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)\nwere also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee\npreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the\nappeal

RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

69C of Rs. 1,51,253/- of the Act.\n4.\nAggrieved from the above order of the Assessing Officer,\nassessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). The assessee\nhas filed the physical appeal on 25.01.2017 whereas the same\nwas filed online on 17.12.2018. The Id. CIT(A) considered the\nappeal filed as belated and the same was disposed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particular, of income. [(G)-Addition ofRs. 17.56,66/] 7.8 Total addition as per CBDT's Circular No. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 & as per provisions of section 37 of the Act of the Act so discussed supra is as under

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any Explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any Explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Act is hereby initiated for concealed the particulars of income.” It is submitted that the ld.AO passed assessment order u/s 153A after obtaining prior approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jaipur vide her office letter No. Jt. CIT/Central Range/JPR/2020-21/679 dated

KISHAN LAL MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

69C of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has concealed the income he is also liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The assessee has non compliance of various notices issued, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is separately initiated. Penalty u/s 271F of the Income

KISHAN LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n28/10/2025

69C of the Act. Accordingly, the addition is upheld u/s\n69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure and the Grounds of\nAppeal are Not Allowed.\n9. Ground No 3: This ground is against the initiation of penalties\nunder various sections 271

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,SIKANDARA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a ) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

section 148A of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2021. No detailed findings has been recorded by the CIT(A) in his appellate order dated 19-10-2023. b) The ITO Ward-14(1), Kolkata has issued notice u/s 148 without satisfying the mandatory condition of obtaining approval of the concerned authority as laid down u/s 151 of the Income