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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section\n271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section\n272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A)\nof section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub- section

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment u/s 148 and notices were issued. In response, the assessee submitted the reply. The details of the notices issued and replied by the assessee were as under: Date of notice Under Issued By Response due dates Reply submitted Section on 09.02.2023 ITO, Pune-13(2) 01.03.2023 22.02.2023 148A 29.03.2023 148 ITO, Pune-13(2) 14.04.2023 11.10.2023 142(1) Faceless

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal is adjudicated in above terms and is hereby treated as dismissed. 6. Ground of Appeal No. 3 is as under: Ground No. 3: Assessee craves the right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal is adjudicated in above terms and is hereby treated as dismissed. 6. Ground of Appeal No. 3 is as under: Ground No. 3: Assessee craves the right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal is adjudicated in above terms and is hereby treated as dismissed. 6. Ground of Appeal No. 3 is as under: Ground No. 3: Assessee craves the right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271D and 271E of the Act and make a reference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner. In the result this ground of appeal is adjudicated in above terms and is hereby treated as dismissed. 6. Ground of Appeal No. 3 is as under: Ground No. 3: Assessee craves the right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal

MONIKA CHAKARVARTY,KOTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, CIRCLE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 412 & 413/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2017-18 Monika Chakarvarty Prop. M/s Vipin Medicals, Nayapura, Kota. cuke Vs. DCIT Circle, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AELPC 3801 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.), Shri Sorabh Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh (Ad

section 26955 and 271D of the I.T. Act. The ld. AR of the assessee further Monika Chakarvarty vs. DCIT submitted that the cash deposit totaling to Rs.86,87,000/- made with the UCO Bank during the F.Y 2011-12 relevant to the A.Y 2012-13, it is submitted that since the assessee was suffering from neuro disease she could

MONIKA CHAKARVARTY,KOTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 26955 and 271D of the I.T. Act. The ld. AR of the assessee further Monika Chakarvarty vs. DCIT submitted that the cash deposit totaling to Rs.86,87,000/- made with the UCO Bank during the F.Y 2011-12 relevant to the A.Y 2012-13, it is submitted that since the assessee was suffering from neuro disease she could

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271D/ 271E and provisions of section 275(1)(c) would be attracted. Held-yes; 2. Whether in case of such penalty limitation period would be counted from the date of assessment order with assessing officer's decision to make reference to his Additional CIT, who is authorized to impose penalty and not from the date of issue of show cause

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

271D and 271E of the Act and make a\nreference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner.\nIn the result this ground of appeal is adjudicated in above terms and is hereby\ntreated as dismissed.\n6. Ground of Appeal No. 3 is as under:\nGround No. 3: Assessee craves the right to add, alter or amend any of the\ngrounds of appeal

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

271D and 271E of the Act and make a\nreference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner.\n\nIn the result this ground of appeal is adjudicated in above terms and is hereby\ntreated as dismissed.\n\n6. Ground of Appeal No. 3 is as under:\n\nGround No. 3: Assessee craves the right to add, alter or amend

SHRI DHOLUMAL ALIAS DHOLAN DAS KHATWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 533/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Dholumal Alias Dholan Das Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Khatwani, Ward-3(2), 129, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Adrpk 6555 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 07/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1(A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Holding The View That The Statutory Notice U/S 147/148 Of The Act Issued In 'Incorrect' Name Is A Valid Notice. The Statutory Notice Issued In Incorrect Name Is Patently An Invalid Notice As Per Provisions Of Law & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 1(B) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Authorities Below Have Factually & Legally Erred In Turning Down The Various Objections Of The Appellant Regarding Initiation Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings U/S 147/148 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case In Right Perspective & Also Without Addressing The Points At Issue. Thus The Findings Of The Authorities Below In This Regard Are Not Well Reasoned, The Same Deserve To Be Quashed Summarily.

271D of the Act were also initiated and upheld by the Authorities for accepting the deposit in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Both views are self-contradictory. This shows double state of mind of the Authorities Below. Obviously addition made on the basis of such vague findings is bad in Law and deserves

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)

271D : Taken or accepted certain loans and deposited in contravention of provisions of Section 269SS. 271E Repaid any deposit specified in section 269T in contravention to its provisions. 5 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 271F Failed to furnish return of income as required by section139 before the end of the relevant assessment year. 272A(1) Refused or failed

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

reassessment cannot be verified. Subject to these observations Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT the peak credit as worked out by the assessee at Rs. 36,89,310/- is held as undisclosed income for this year. (iii)………… In the above case the assessment for the AY 2001-02 was done however which was quashed by the honourable Tribunal. Even then

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment cannot be verified. Subject to these observations Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT the peak credit as worked out by the assessee at Rs. 36,89,310/- is held as undisclosed income for this year. (iii)………… In the above case the assessment for the AY 2001-02 was done however which was quashed by the honourable Tribunal. Even then

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment cannot be verified. Subject to these observations Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT the peak credit as worked out by the assessee at Rs. 36,89,310/- is held as undisclosed income for this year. (iii)………… In the above case the assessment for the AY 2001-02 was done however which was quashed by the honourable Tribunal. Even then