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

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

801, Western Heights, Central Circle-1, S-21, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS 7265 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Anil Goyal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 22/05/2019 mn?kks"k.kk

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

801, Western Heights, Central Circle-1, S-21, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASPPS 7131 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Anil Goyal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 22/05/2019 mn?kks"k.kk

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is quite vague. The impugned penalty based on such a notice being contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honor to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 5. The fact

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is quite vague. The impugned penalty based on such a notice being contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honor to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 5. The fact

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is quite vague. The impugned penalty based on such a notice being contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honor to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing." 5. The fact

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

801/- and it is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Act 1961. Thus, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). I therefore, proceed to levy penalty of Rs. 7,73,859/-. ” 30 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 21. We therefore find that uncertain charge at the time of initiation

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

801 (SC), apparent must be considered as real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that apparent is not real, and that the Taxing Officers are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality. and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The explanation given

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is quite vague. The impugned penalty based on such a notice being contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honor to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing." 5. The fact

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is quite vague. The impugned penalty based on such a notice being contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honor to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 5. The fact

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1) (C) OF THE Income Tax act. Therefore, the decision is not found to be applicable on the facts of the present case. Brief facts of the case are that originally the assessee filed the return of income on 30.9.2009 declaring a loss of Rs.1,13,74,180/- Pursuant to the search and seizure operations u/s

CHAND MONAMMAD,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER

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

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

271(1)(c) has not yet been levied and only notice has been issued. Even otherwise penalty proceedings are separate from assessmentproceedings. Hence, this GOA No. 4 is dismissed. 8. In view of above facts the appeal is DISMISSED.’’ 2.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter before this Bench of ITAT

ELCON DRUGS & FORMULATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is separately for concealment of income. 8. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments. The ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in his order has rejected the arguments

JHUTHA RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

801 (SC)] the Apex Court held that evidence or surrounding circumstances must substantiate claims made by the assessee by holding as under- The transaction about purchase of winning ticket took place in secret and direct evidence about such purchase would be rarely available. An inference about such a purchase had to be drawnon the basis of the circumstances available

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) were initiated mechanically without recording proper satisfaction. Mere disallowance of an expense does not attract penalty unless the claim was false or made with the intent to evade tax. 7. The appellant reserves the right to add, modify, alter, or delete any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 3 Devika Buildestate

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

271(1)(c). The appellant’s appeal before Ld. CIT (Appeals) against above order u/s 143(3) of the A.O. is pending as on date for disposal. 1.3 Post the above, Ld. CIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 11-10-2018 to revise the above order of the A.O. Copy of the notices dated

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S SPYTECH BUILDCON, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court. (Ii) The Appellant Craves Its Rights To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Of The Grounds On Or Before The Hearing.”

801/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. AR has submitted that Hon’ble ITAT while deciding the quantum of appeal of the assessee 2 ITA No. 809/JP/2017. M/s Spytech Buildcon, Jaipur. has deleted the addition and the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief by relying upon the decision

RAGHUVEER METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the ground no

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading of TMT bars. It filed its return of income declaring total income at nil on 26.09.2020 and thereafter the matter was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. During

RAGHUVEER METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the ground no

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading of TMT bars. It filed its return of income declaring total income at nil on 26.09.2020 and thereafter the matter was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. During