VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,40,099/- relating to TP adjustment.” 9. On appeal by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable as the assessee has not been able to prove that good faith and due diligence has been followed and the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,40,099/- relating to TP adjustment.” 9. On appeal by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable as the assessee has not been able to prove that good faith and due diligence has been followed and the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,040/-. Hence, the pleading on the ground of equity also fails. 5.7 Thus though surrender was during the search in course of statements u/s 132(4), the disclosure u/s 132(4), by itself cannot redeem the appellant from deeming provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1)( c) of the Act. Factually speaking the statement

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

1 April 2018 that where such donations are made with specific directions to form part of corpus of the recipient entity, it will not be considered as application of income in the hands of the donor entity. However, the donations with no specific directions to the recipient entity continue to be eligible as application of income. 48. In the instant

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

11. In the instant case, the notice initiating the penalty proceedings talks\nabout initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of\nundisclosed income of the specified previous year. However, while passing the\npenalty proceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected\nin the penalty order that the assessee is liable for penalty

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

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

c) when: 'the initiation of the penalty proceeding was for concealment of the particulars of income. But the Tribunal finally held that the assessee would be deemed to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.' 19. Thus it is evident that when the AO is satisfied at the stage of initiation

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

68,70,579/- and as on 31.03.2011 is Rs.4,40,91,629/- and thus there is an increase of Rs.2,27,78,950 /- in the year under consideration. Accordingly, the assessee was required to explain that why the development funds has not been included in the Gross receipts but taken directly to the balance sheet. Assessee filed the explanation which

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

68,89,419/- i.e 40,33,412/- on account of construction expenses and added in total income of the assessee. without considering the fact that it was never claimed by the assessee appellant. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Ld. Lower Authority grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 1

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 164 (2) of the Act and the Court decision referred above. Thus Ground No. 1 is restored to file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5.1 In Ground No. 2, the assessee is aggrieved that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 of Rs.4,37,000/-\nnotwithstanding the fact that mere failure to substantiate the explanation is not\nenough to warrant penalty. Thus the penalty imposed to the extent is liable to\nbe quashed.\n5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty order passed by the AO, on\naddition of Electricity expenses Rs.25

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

68,470/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain and commission charges of Rs. 9,000/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act at the total income of Rs. 12,24,18,200/-. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

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) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

11,020/- which includes the income 3 DCIT Vs Rajendra Agarwal admitted by the assessee and surrendered to tax as undisclosed income during the search and seizure action. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the income surrendered by the assessee of Rs. 2,79,23,161/- and levied

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held\r\nthat a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or\r\n139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted\r\nupon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further\r\nproceedings in relation

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)

11. In fact, when the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings the AO appeared to be conscious of the fact that he did not have the power to issue notice as far as the penalty proceedings under Section 271-E was concerned. He, therefore, referred the matter concerning penalty proceedings under Section 271-E to the Additional

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)

11. In fact, when the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings the AO appeared to be conscious of the fact that he did not have the power to issue notice as far as the penalty proceedings under Section 271-E was concerned. He, therefore, referred the matter concerning penalty proceedings under Section 271-E to the Additional