Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rupesh Tambi Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)
Related Assessment Year : 2015-16
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Rupesh Tambi Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) A search was conducted on 15.10.2014 in the Surana Group, where the Assessee, proprietor of Arshia Jewellers, was also covered. The AO levied a penalty of ₹22.21 lakh u/s 271AAB(1)(c) on alleged undisclosed income of ₹74.03 lakh, comprising ₹49.50 lakh (investment in house construction) & ₹24.53 lakh (difference in stock valuation). CIT(A) upheld the levy. Before Tribunal, the Assessee contended that: The penalty notices were vague, not specifying whether it was under clause (a), (b) or (c) of s. 271AAB; Penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory, as th...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Patna ITAT: Interest on Delayed Payment of Sales Tax, Service Tax & Employer’s PF Contribution Allowable; TDS Interest Not Deductible Section 54F Deduction Allowed on Genuine House Purchase from In-Laws: Mumbai ITAT Pune ITAT Quashes Reassessment as Section 148A(b) & 148A(d) Reasons Differed Section 54 Relief Can’t Be Denied Merely Due to Section 50C Addition: Pune ITAT Delhi ITAT Deletes Penny Stock Addition; Suspicion Can’t Replace Evidence View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031