RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of Act which has been issued in printedletter without ticking / marking the applicable clause / without striking-off the irrelevant limb which reveals that the penalty was initiated as well as levied for both the charges. It is apparent that if AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, was satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars

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)

section 271AAB is not satisfied. Apart from the fact that these transactions were duly recorded in the books of account, the assessee has also produced relevant documents, the details of which are as under :— (A) IN RELATION TO SHARES PURCHASE : Summary of shares purchased during the FY 2012-13 (page No. 87 of paper book) Copy of share allotment Advice

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

90,95,257/-. In appeal the A/R of the appellant filed submission on merits as well as legality of 13 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. the penalty order. On legality he argued that the penalty levied is barred by limitation and the issue is covered by decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

90,95,257/-. In appeal the A/R of the appellant filed submission on merits as well as legality of 13 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. the penalty order. On legality he argued that the penalty levied is barred by limitation and the issue is covered by decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

u/s 132(4) recorded during the course of search nor a declaration in the return of income, the penalty has been kept at a higher pedestal which can vary from 30% to 90%. Further, it is noted that the provisions of section 271AAB overrides section 271

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

90,86,782/- under clause 1(a) of that section despite the fact that manner of earning of undisclosed income was not disclosed by the assessee. 2. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares which has resulted Long Term Capital Gains are duly recorded in the books

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

90-93 of paper book) Copy of Balance Sheet and Capital Account of Assessment Year 2013-14 (page no. 94 of paper book) Copy of Assessment Order dated 22.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota (Raj.) for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (page nos. 95-101 of paper book) Copy

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota (Raj.) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. (page no. 84-88 of paper book). (B) IN RELATION TO SHARES SALES: Summary of shares sale during the year under consideration (page no. 89 of paper book) Copy of sales bills/contract notes of shares (page nos. 90

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

90 of paper book. Copy of relevant page of bank statement showing the payment made against purchases of shares (page no. 91 of paper book) Acknowledgement of ITR filed on 27.09.2013 u/s 139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 along with computation sheet of total Income of the A.Y. 2013-14 (page nos. 92-94 of paper book). Acknowledgement

SHRI GOPAL DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

90,10,000/- was imposed under section 271AAB of the Act while passing the order dated 14th June, 2017. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) being wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. However, the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the levy of penalty by holding that the penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory

SHRI SHYAM SUNDER KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

90,06,900/- was imposed under section 271AAB of the Act while passing the order dated 14th June, 2017. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) being wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. However, the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the levy of penalty by holding that the penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

u/s 132(4) recorded during the course of search nor a declaration in the return of income, the penalty has been kept at a higher pedestal which can vary from 30% to 90%. Further, it is noted that the provisions of section 271AAB overrides section 271

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 132(4) recorded during the course of search nor a declaration in the return of income, the penalty has been kept at a higher pedestal which can vary from 30% to 90%. Further, it is noted that the provisions of section 271AAB overrides section 271

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer ought to have been recorded his satisfaction. However, Ld. AO has failed to do so. The same is in violation of CBDT Circular no. 09/DV/2016 dated 26.04.2016 advising Assessing Officer to make a reference

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

90[including,— (i) an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; or (ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or (iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

90[including,— (i) an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; or (ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or (iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that