JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c), the penalty is leviable if the appellant is not able to substantiate the explanation offered by him and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him. The assessment order, the order

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

9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting to Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income

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

9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting to Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income

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

9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting to Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

VI-A, we find that section 80-IB/80-IA are the Code by themselves as they contain both substantive as well as procedural provisions. Therefore, we need to examine what these provisions prescribe for "computation of profits of the eligible business". It is evident that section 80-1B provides for allowing of deduction in respect of profits and gains derived

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

9 R. P. Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT revised return pursuant to filing of return in response to notice under section 153A of the Act and the provisions of section 139(5) are equally applicable in case of return filed pursuant to notice under section 153A of the Act. It is well settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

vi) That initiation of penalty on the voluntarily offered income without any adverse findings on the duly maintained Books of accounts by the appellant even after examination of the same by the Assessing Officer and the Investigation Wing, is bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB of the IT Act and a penalty notice was issued accordingly. You are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 245C remain unfulfilled. As such, the Commissioner if unable to provide for the terms of settlement as required u/s. 245D(6). Accordingly, the application in both cases, are hereby rejected.” As a result, the proceedings were abated to the assessing officer. Mangi Lal Kandoi vs. ACIT 9. The ld. AO has completed the assessment on 15.09.2017 u/s

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 245C remain unfulfilled. As such, the Commissioner if unable to provide for the terms of settlement as required u/s. 245D(6). Accordingly, the application in both cases, are hereby rejected.” As a result, the proceedings were abated to the assessing officer. Mangi Lal Kandoi vs. ACIT 9. The ld. AO has completed the assessment on 15.09.2017 u/s

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 245C remain unfulfilled. As such, the Commissioner if unable to provide for the terms of settlement as required u/s. 245D(6). Accordingly, the application in both cases, are hereby rejected.” As a result, the proceedings were abated to the assessing officer. Mangi Lal Kandoi vs. ACIT 9. The ld. AO has completed the assessment on 15.09.2017 u/s

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)—AO has not even specified in the notice the specific clause of s. 271AAB under which the penalty was sought to be levied—Word 'may' gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty, even if the assessee has made the default under the said provision—Impugned penalty was not sustainable. 2. Addition

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observed, ITA 63 to 68/JP/2019 9 M/s N N Jewellers Vs ITO vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity as he is unaware

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observed, ITA 63 to 68/JP/2019 9 M/s N N Jewellers Vs ITO vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity as he is unaware

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

9 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption U/s 10(38) of the Act is found to be not allowable, the same would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

9 DCIT Vs Rajendra Agarwal Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption U/s 10(38) of the Act is found to be not allowable, the same would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

9 DCIT Vs Shri Vasudev Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption U/s 10(38) of the Act is found to be not allowable, the same would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI AJAY AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

9 DCIT Vs Ajay Agarwal The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption U/s 10(38) of the Act is found to be not allowable