M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

penalty of Rs. 57,33,335/- under clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) @ 10% of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- being income surrendered in search as recorded in statement u/s 132(4) and of Rs. 35,408/- under sub clause (b) of section 271AAB (1) of Act @ 20% of Rs. 1,77,039/-, being difference

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC. The assessee was unable to discharge the onus under Section 68 as in this case

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 to 69A are made. Penal statutes which create offences or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 698B, section 69C or section 690, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income- tax payable shall be the aggregate of (i) The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent and (ii) The amount

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty u/s 2711) for violation of section 269SS, the same cannot be added to the income as both sections 68

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty u/s 2711) for violation of section 269SS, the same cannot be added to the income as both sections 68

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty u/s 2711) for violation of section 269SS, the same cannot be added to the income as both sections 68

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty u/s 2711) for violation of section 269SS, the same cannot be added to the income as both sections 68

SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

penalty of Rs. 3.00 lacs u/s 271AAB of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) 2.2 The assessee is an individual and derives income from house property, income from business and profession and interest from partnership firm. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s. Mundra & Jain Marble

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 269SS—Loan or deposit—Assessee filed return of income—During assessment proceeding, AO noted that assessee had received cash on different dates from his father—Assessee claimed that cash was received from his father representing gift—Assessee in support of his claim filed a Gift Deed prepared on Stamp Paper however, AO observed that gift was received by assessee

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

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

penalty under section 271AAB(1) of the IT Act @ 30% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 4,68,22,918/- which

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 68 to 69A are made. Penal statutes which create offences or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 68 to 69A are made. Penal statutes which create offences or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing

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

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria\nBrothers

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria\nBrothers

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 68 /69 and other related provisions of the Act and also for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in view

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 68 /69 and other related provisions of the Act and also for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in view

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty; (c) in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit.” 4. As evident above, the CIT(A) has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment where the appeal is against the order of assessment. However, only in case where the assessment order is passed under section