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

RADHAKISHNA 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)

c). In so far as the case on hand, clause (a) of section 251(1) of the Act should be relevant, which states in an appeal against the order of assessment the Commissioner (Appeals) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. On a reading of the Finance Act, 2001 (Circular No. 14 of2001) the Commissioner of Appeals

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)

c). In so far as the case on hand, clause (a) of section 251(1) of the Act should be relevant, which states in an appeal against the order of assessment the Commissioner (Appeals) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. On a reading of the Finance Act, 2001 (Circular No. 14 of2001) the Commissioner of Appeals

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

68 but it should have been made u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 then the jurisdiction of CIT (A) in limited to deciding the matter whether the addition u/s 69A is correct or not. In the appellate proceeding the addition cannot be confirmed by applying all together different section by invoking a section for which satisfaction

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.]" On perusal of Rule 46A reproduced hereinabove, it is seen that the case of the appellant is covered by sub-rule (1) Clause (b) as he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the AO during the course of assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

251 ITR 99. Affirming the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that after insertion of explanation its earlier decision in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable. The Kerala High Court at page 244 has observed as under:- "The question

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

68,051 was sustained equally among the two assessees. The said addition forms the basis of impunged penalty orders drawing solely and heavily on the findings of the assessment order and there is no further finding so recorded by the AO during the course of penalty proceedings. We thus find that the explanation of the assessee has been accepted

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

68 was one which was surrendered by Assessee itself- Both the authorities below had recorded finding that there was neither any detection nor any information in the possession of Department except for the amount surrendered by Assessee and in these circumstances it cannot be said that there was any concealment-This is a finding of fact There is no illegality