TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

u/s 147 is justified.\n1. What is to be seen at the stage of recording the reasons is existence of belief\nbased on faithful appreciation of material which has link to an income escaping\nassessment, but not the established fact of escapement of income by detailed\ninvestigation or legal analysis. In other words, at the point of time of initiating

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 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 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

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

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

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

reassessment of income of person other than searched persons based on seized material can be made u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A and has overriding effect on section 147/ 148. In the present case, addition made by the AO is not on the basis of any material seized during the search proceedings. Hence, addition made by the AO in the assessment framed

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

147 of the Act were initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the notice's u/s

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

147 of the Act were initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the notice's u/s

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

147 of the Act were initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the notice's u/s

SMT. SHIVA BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1108/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Smt. Shiva Bhatia, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. 49-A, New Colony, Gumanpura, Central Circle Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahtpb 1598 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Udaipur Dated 28/06/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 In The Matter Of Confirmation Of Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Effective Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 On The Alleged Undisclosed Salary Income Of Rs. 1,80,000/- Received From M/S Bhatia Corporation Pvt. Ltd. By Not Accepting The Explanation Of Assessee That Such Salary Income Was Inadvertently Left To Be Included At The Time Of Filing The Return.”

5A to section 271(1)(c) is satisfied in the instant case and therefore, levy of penalty is hereby directed to be deleted.” 8. After having gone through the facts of the present case, we noticed that only dispute in the present case is levy of penalty on the alleged undisclosed salary income of Rs.1,80,000/- credited

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

reassess under section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\n\nThat the heading of section 14A, i.e. “Expenditure incurred in relation to\nincome not includible in total

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

reassess under section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]\n\nThat the heading of section 14A, i.e. “Expenditure incurred in relation to\nincome not includible in total

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain