ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

set aside impugned penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no substantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether Special leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee].” 9 Supporting case laws u/s 271

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

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

loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage, the Id. Departmental Representative submits that treating the\nreturn as non-est tantamounts to recording of satisfaction and initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s

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

loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage, the Id. Departmental Representative submits that treating the\nreturn as non-est tantamounts to recording of satisfaction and initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s

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

loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage, the Id. Departmental Representative submits that treating the\nreturn as non-est tantamounts to recording of satisfaction and initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s

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

loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage, the Id. Departmental Representative submits that treating the\nreturn as non-est tantamounts to recording of satisfaction and initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s

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

loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage, the Id. Departmental Representative submits that treating the\nreturn as non-est tantamounts to recording of satisfaction and initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

set off as loss of earlier year by the assessee in the return filed u/s 153A was not allowed and the same was added back to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the penalty proceedings u/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

set aside impugned penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no substantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether Special leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee].”\n9 Supporting case laws u/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

set aside impugned penalty order -\nHigh Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no substantial question of law\narose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether\nSpecial leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held,\nyes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee].\"\n9\nSupporting case laws u/s 271

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

loss on sale of machinery which was set off against other incomes. AO disallowed such claim & initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

loss of Rs. (-) 3,30,089/- declared in ITR by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had made bogus purchases from M/s Kriya Impex Ltd. of Rs.6,99,500/- and from M/s Sun Diam of Rs.10,58,250/-. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.4,39,437/- @ 25% of total bogus purchases

RAM KISHORE MEENA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD, MORAK, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

set of facts the Ld. CIT(A), Kota vide his order dated 12.03.2019 in Appeal No 315/17-18 for A.Y. 2012-13, has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.7 In view of the above and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

setting off brought forward business loss of Rs. 21,56,933/-.\nThe assessment order u/s 143(3)/154 of the IT Act, 1961 was passed on\n27.03.2014 determining total income at Rs. 4,83,29,010/-. The assessee\ncompany engaged in the business of developing a real estate project\nnamed \"South City” near chaksu, Jaipur. In the assessment order penalty

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

loss-Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) was issued and query was asked regarding share application money received by Assessee-Assessee filed its reply mentioning therein that it had received share application money through cheques and drafts which was cleared by banks-However, in case of 12 applicants for which detailed list was separately enclosed, necessary documents were not there

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

loss on account of trading in securities. The Ld. A.O also allegedly issued two show cause notices for imposing penalty under Section 271B (Paper Book Page 15 & Pages 16-17). However, one of the show cause notice allegedly dated 20.12.2019 was not uploaded on portal and was also not served in hard copy. The copy of screenshot of portal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble High Court Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of Hon’Ble Itat & The Matter Is Subjudice?”

loss account, submitted with the auditors's report and in the computation of income the assessee reduced the same amount of Rs.2,66,53,550/- which is not correct and by this way, the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, hence penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. He further noted that had the case not been

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

setting fourth such particulars as may be prescribed. As per explanation (ii) of section 44AB specified date in relation to the accounts of the assessee of the previous year relevant to an assessment year, means the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of 4 Bhawani Shankar Gupta vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Jaipur section