THE ACIT CEN CIR-13, MUMBAI vs. SHRI JHALARAM DEWASI (ALIAS SANJAY T. JAIN), RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Bench & Considered For Disposal.

investment is Rs. 1,66,66,000/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated. 6. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue

THE ACIT CEN CIR-13, MUMBAI vs. SHRI AMRITLAL MALI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Bench & Considered For Disposal.

investment is Rs. 1,66,66,000/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated. 6. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Us.

unexplained investment as per section 69. The same are required to be taxed as per the provision of section 115BBE. 2. It is also noted that this income of the assessee would not have been discovered unless an action u/s 133A of the IT Act, 11 Shri Pawan Kumar Jain vs. Pr. CIT 1961 was conducted. Hence, penalty u/s 271

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAILEELA SYNTHETICS PVT. LD. , BHILWARA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 4.4 The appellant has furnished, in respect of each person following documentary evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the persons

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

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

unexplained income and added it to the respondent’s income and the Inspecting Assistant Commission also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under s. 271(1)(c). But the Tribunal held that because the respondent could not produce the parties, it did not follow automatically that an adverse inference should be drawn that the amount represented undisclosed income

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c) holding that not to tick correct limb of the notice regarding\nconcealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income, renders the notice and\nconsequential proceedings as invalid and void, was confirmed by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows. Copy of notice u/s\n148 is enclosed-2.\n(2)\nThat