ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

short term capital gain of Rs.15,72,409/- and not on entire value of transactions i.e. 86,31,724/-. Appellant prays that shares were purchased Online, through banking channels and were duly recorded in books of accounts, thus source of the same was explained and addition so made is absolutely unwarranted and deserves to be deleted. 3.1 That, Ld.CIT

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

short the Act) for the A.Y. 2013-14. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 86,64,845/- levied by the A.O. under explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

short the Act) for the A.Y. 2013-14. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 42,21,625/- levied by the A.O. under explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

short the Act) for the A.Y. 2013-14. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 42,45,088/- levied by the A.O. under explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

short the Act) for the A.Y. 2013-14. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 86,91,502/- levied by the A.O. under explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

short the Act) for the A.Y. 2013-14. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 86,40,913/- levied by the A.O. under explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

short the Act) for the A.Y. 2013-14. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 86,28,256/- levied by the A.O. under explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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.

short-term capital gain. No appeal was preferred Therefore, that addition had become final. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and levied the penalty of Rs 1,04,110. In appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome-tax (Appeals), the penalty amount was reduced

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

term capital gain' and claimed exemption, but the\ntransaction has been disclosed in the return. That was his mistake and\nnot the mistake of the assessee. When the assessee has disclosed the\ntransaction which is the basis for capital gain tax and though wrongly\nclaimed exemption from the capital gain tax, but that cannot be a case\nof penalty under