SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was to be deleted.” 12. Expl. 5A to section 271(1)(C) – not applicable: 12.1. At the outset, it is a trite law that a panel provision has to be construed strictly. Therefore, the provisions of S. 271 (1)(c) have to be construed strictly, and the Explanation 5A which creates a deeming

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c), it lays down the following essential conditions which needs to be satisfied before the assessee is fastened with the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act: (1) Firstly, it talks about a situation where the search has been initiated u/s 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007. In the present case

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

71,202/- being 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 14,97,82,023/-. Even while passing the penalty order the Learned Assessing Officer has not specified the default of the assessee with ITA 421/JP/2018_ 6 Shri Ram Das Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT respect of clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 271AAB(1). The penalty order has been passed u/s

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

71,202/- being 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 14,97,82,023/-. Even while passing the penalty order the Ld. Assessing Officer has not specified the default of the assessee with respect of ITA 419/JP/2018_ 6 Shri Ashok Kr. Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 271AAB(1). The penalty order has been passed u/s

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)

u/s 271(1)(c), on the trading additions and commission payment sustained in the quantum proceedings of Rs. 4,42,953, worked out on estimate basis. 5 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 1.2. During the course of quantum proceedings, before the lower authorities, all the details of the purchases made by the assessee firm from the parties, alleged

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. Search and seizure proceeding were carried out by the Investigation Wing of the department at the residential and business premises connected with “Resonance Group, Kota” on 07.08.2017, u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, as part of Resonance Group, this case was taken up for block