DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

5A to section 271(1)(c) is not attracted to the case of the assessee, then the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the assessee has declared the said income in the return of income filed in response to notice issued under section 153A of the IT Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

5A to section 271(1)(c) is not attracted to the case of the assessee, then the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the assessee has declared the said income in the return of income filed in response to notice issued under section 153A of the IT Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

5A to section 271(1)(c) is not attracted to the case of the assessee, then the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the assessee has declared the said income in the return of income filed in response to notice issued under section 153A of the IT Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act can be levied only when some incriminating 19 DCIT Vs Shri Vasudev Agarwal material is found during the course of search. Even otherwise

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act can be levied only when some incriminating 19 DCIT Vs Ajay Agarwal material is found during the course of search. Even otherwise the penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” 19 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act can be levied only when some incriminating material is found during the course of search. Even otherwise the penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” 19 DCIT Vs Indira Agarwal Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act can be levied only when some incriminating material is found during the course of search. Even otherwise the penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act can be levied only when some incriminating material is found during the course of search. Even otherwise the penalty proceedings are separate and independent

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by ld. CIT (A).” Thus, the Tribunal has held that the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act can be levied only when some incriminating material is found during the course of search. Even otherwise the penalty proceedings are separate and independent

RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

reassessment proceedings. The provision of Section 153A, 153B and 153C are a complete code for assessment wherein search and seizure has been initiated after May 31, 2003. Thus, there is complete detachment of assessment proceedings under section 143 or 147 from search proceeding under section 153A of the Act. For the purpose of imposition of penalty under section

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)

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

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

5A to section 271(1)(c) is a deeming provision and subject to fulfilling the Smt. Shipra Jain & Sh. Sapna Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur requisite conditions, it deems the assessee to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income similar to what has been provided in clause (c) to section

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

5A of the Land Acquisition Act to the state Government on 26.11.2007. Subsequently notification under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.01.2008 and on 21.06.2008 to 26.06.2008. Notice u/s 9(1) was published. • Thereafter the State Government vide letter dated 24.06.2010 decided the award ex-parte of the lands which were acquired for Special Economic Zone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

5A of the Land Acquisition Act to the state Government on 26.11.2007. Subsequently notification under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.01.2008 and on 21.06.2008 to 26.06.2008. Notice u/s 9(1) was published. • Thereafter the State Government vide letter dated 24.06.2010 decided the award ex-parte of the lands which were acquired for Special Economic Zone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

5A of the Land Acquisition Act to the state Government on 26.11.2007. Subsequently notification under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.01.2008 and on 21.06.2008 to 26.06.2008. Notice u/s 9(1) was published. • Thereafter the State Government vide letter dated 24.06.2010 decided the award ex-parte of the lands which were acquired for Special Economic Zone

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

5A of the Land Acquisition Act to the state Government on 26.11.2007. Subsequently notification under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.01.2008 and on 21.06.2008 to 26.06.2008. Notice u/s 9(1) was published. • Thereafter the State Government vide letter dated 24.06.2010 decided the award ex-parte of the lands which were acquired for Special Economic Zone

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to\nany assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to\nin this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section\n132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall\nabate.\" What is clear from this is that Section 153A

SHRI YASH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

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

5A to section 271(1)(c), he imposed penalty on such addition of Rs.70,000/-. 3. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that since no incriminating material was found during search, addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. Only because addition has been made to the income would not lead to penalty