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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that \"assessenent or reassessment

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.

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” 8. We are not required to consider the other contingencies for examination of legality and validity of the penalty under Section 271(1

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

1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons. Assessee\nadmitted a mistake In computation and declared additional income – Thereafter,\na notice under Section 148 was issued for reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271

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

1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons. Assessee\nadmitted a mistake In computation and declared additional income – Thereafter,\na notice under Section 148 was issued for reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271

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

1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons. Assessee\nadmitted a mistake In computation and declared additional income – Thereafter,\na notice under Section 148 was issued for reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271

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

1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons. Assessee\nadmitted a mistake In computation and declared additional income – Thereafter,\na notice under Section 148 was issued for reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271

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

1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons. Assessee\nadmitted a mistake In computation and declared additional income – Thereafter,\na notice under Section 148 was issued for reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” 8. We are not required to consider the other contingencies for examination of legality and validity of the penalty under Section 271(1

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

section 271(1)(c). The Ld.CIT(A) finally\nreferring to the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of\nK.P.Madhusudan(2002)125 taxmann 265 and Hon'ble Calcutta High\n4\nITA No. 32/JPR/2025\nSh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Kota\nCourt in the case of Bijay iron Stores [2001] 252 ITR 408, dismissed the\nappeal of the assessee

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(b) of the Act is leviable for the default(s) under consideration for the given assessment year. The assessee has failed to prove that there was reasonable cause as per the section 2738 of the Act for non- compliance to the statutory notice(s) in question. 7. As has been stated in the assessment order as well

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR 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)

1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended

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)

1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended

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

1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that “assessment or reassessment

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 142], or …………. ………… he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty- 1.64[**] 2. In the cases referred to in clause (b), 66 [in addition to tax, if any, payable] by him, 67 [a sum of ten thousand rupees] for each such failure:] 3……” A bare perusal of above, makes it amply clear for levy of penalty

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. VIJAY KUMAR SAINI, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging payment against credit card bills and earned contract receipts without explaining their source. Notice under Section 148 was issued but returned unserved.", "held": "The Tribunal held that service of notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional requirement and not a procedural one. Since the notice was not properly

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs. 6,37,200/- confirmed by him in quantum proceedings. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3. Since both the appeals are of the same assessee and related to same assessment year and argued