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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. Assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. Assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. Assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

SHRI KAILASH CHAND JAT,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

80C of the Act of Rs. 16,000/- for want of required evidences. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of additions made in the assessment order and further by issuing show cause notice dated 23/3/2015. The Assessing Officer finally levied the penalty of Rs. 99,750/- being

SHRI SHANKAR SINGH SHERAWAT,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is mandatory for initiation of proceedings and the penalty proceedings should be confined only to those grounds. Therefore, the grounds has to be specifically stated in the show cause notice so that the assessee would have the opportunity to meet those grounds. The Assessing Officer while ensuing the notice has to come

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

80C of the Act. As such the investment made by the assessee\nin purchase of aforesaid policies remained unexplained and deserves to be added\nu/s 69 of the Act. Thus, the case was reopened and notice under section 148 of the\nIT Act, 1961 was issued on 20.09.2020 and served electronically to the assessee.\nThe assessee filed his return

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

80C of the Act. As such the investment made by the assessee\nin purchase of aforesaid policies remained unexplained and deserves to be added\nu/s 69 of the Act. Thus, the case was reopened and notice under section 148 of the\nIT Act, 1961 was issued on 20.09.2020 and served electronically to the assessee.\nThe assessee filed his return

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)

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response to which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of Rs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description

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)

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response to which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of Rs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description

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)

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response to which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of Rs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description

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

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove

271(1)(b) of the Act)\n| बनाम\n| The ACIT\n| Shri Shailendra Garg\n| Vs.\n| Circle-6\n| Chak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur,\n| Ganganagar - 335 027\n| Jaipur\n| स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E\n| प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\n| अपीलार्थी / Appellant\n\nआयकरअपीलसं. / ITA Nos.1558 /JP/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16\n(Penalty Appeal u/s

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

ANSHUL JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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 ex-parte and confirmed the additions made by the AO, stating that\nthe appellant could not controvert the findings given

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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 ex-parte and confirmed the additions made by the AO, stating that\nthe appellant could not controvert the findings given

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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 ex-parte and confirmed the additions made by the AO, stating that\nthe appellant could not controvert the findings given

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response\nto which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of\nRs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been\ninventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A-\n28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated\nbelow -\nS.No.\nExhibit No.\n& Page No.\nDescription

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response\nto which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of\nRs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been\ninventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A-\n28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated\nbelow -\nS.No.\nExhibit No.\n& Page No.\nDescription

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical

Penalty Appeal u/s 271B of the Act) Shri Shailendra Garg Chak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur, Ganganagar - 335 027 बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-6 Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Prasant Daga, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date