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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.\" What is clear from this is that Section 153A

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.

271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly

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

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

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(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

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

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(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

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

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(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

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

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(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

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

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(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

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)

B). 14 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR (h) The said deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Commissioner. (i) The imposition of penalty is not automatic. (j) Imposition of penalty even if the tax liability is admitted is not automatic. (k) Even if the assessee has not challenged

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

NITU KHADARIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), NCRB BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that the assessee had filed complete details, along with supporting evidence, which was being duly reflected on the ITBA portal, but the Ld.AO did not give cognizance to the same, and passed the assessment order u/s 144, by falsely stating that the assessee

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

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)

b). (2) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person

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)

b). (2) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person

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

b). (2) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person

RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) also nowhere stated that\nthese notices has been served upon the assessee.\n5. Appeal of Quantum is pending: Further it is submitted that the appeal against the assessment\norder was pending, where we had taken the ground of non services of notice and the fate

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)

B-177, Bapu Nagar, Ward 5(1), Mangal Marg, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AARPU 6953 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/03/2023 mn?kks"k.kk

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

reassessment proceedings initiated by notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not legally transferred by the Chief Commissioner/Director General, Kolkata after recording and communicating the reasons and providing opportunity to the appellant as prescribed u/s 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case