KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

income filed u/s 153A is accepted.\nThe A.O. thereafter took penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which were\ninitiated vide said notice dated 28-12-2016. The assessee filed its submissions\ncontending that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable but A.O. rejected the\ncontentions raised by assessee and vide impugned penalty order dated 23-03-\n2020 under appeal

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

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

undisclosed income of Rs.3,94,67,426/-surrendered in survey operation u/s 133A conducted on 09.12.2014 at the business premises of the assessee situated at 1756, Telepada, SMS Highway, Jaipur. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A was completed at Rs.3,95,19,200/- vide order dated 24.12.2018 and penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of\nincome were initiated u/s

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)

undisclosed income of Rs. 3,94,67,426/-surrendered in survey operation u/s 133A conducted on 09.12.2014 at the business premises of the assessee situated at 1756, Telepada, SMS Highway, Jaipur. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A was completed at Rs. 3,95,19,200/- vide order dated 24.12.2018 and penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income of\nRs.3,38,35,315/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of\nthe I.T. Act?\"\n3.4 As is evident from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all\nthese bunch of appeal are identical

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271AAB.\nAs per the definition of the undisclosed income given in section\n271AAB of the Act. the undisclosed income means any income of the\nspecified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any\nmoney, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or In the\npresent case, the excess stock was found during the course of search\nand

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

undisclosed income attracting penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1)©. In view of this, the penalty levied in this case is was unlawful. Further, in the notice issued on 22/12/2018 also, the Learned Assessing Officer asked the assessee to show-cause why penalty proceedings u/s 271

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271 AAB is leviable on undisclosed\nincome. The definition of undisclosed income is mentioned in\nprovisions of Sec. 271AAB

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

undisclosed income based on seized material for\neach of six assessment years - Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed

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

undisclosed income based on seized material for\neach of six assessment years - Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed

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

undisclosed income based on seized material for\neach of six assessment years - Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

undisclosed income” as defined u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

undisclosed income” as defined u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

undisclosed income” as defined u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even in cases involving search actions if in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is so warranted. The only bar is that no penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income

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

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even in cases involving search actions if in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is so warranted. The only bar is that no penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

undisclosed income proved against the appellant Penalty levied u/s 271AAB cannot be sustained. The As accordingly directed to 7 ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023 & CO No. 04/JP/2023 DCIT, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma delete the penalty levied u/s 271AAB on the appellant fence this ground of appeal is allowed. 8. The last Ground of Appeal is that the appellant craves leave

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 are being initiated separately. The Assessing Officer has neither referred to any undisclosed income within the meaning of explanation( c) to Section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T.Act nor specified the default prescribed u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act. 6. Thereafter, Ld Assessing Officer issued a stereotyped show