“concealment of income”

Kothari Jewels Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

KOTHARI JEWELS PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR against the assessee company for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income, vide show cause notice, dated 31.03.2013. However, never subsequent to the conclusion of the assessment proceedings and till the time penalty was levied ... Court that that Notice under Section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Following conclusions were drawn by the Hon’ble High Court in its order at Para

Rajkumar Asnani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Shardul Singh, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Jhunjhunu, Income Tax Officer Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied is hereby dropped with no orders to cost

Bench: passing the order u/s 271 (1) (c) 4 The AO imposed penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) without any ESTABLISHING Submission of A. Inaccurate facts/Statements B. without Establishing CONCEALMENT OF INCOME as all mentioned by him was fetched by Submission of the Assessee and without doing any Act to take correct decision to impose penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) 5. The AO not considered the Submitted Decisions of relavant courts furnished by the Assessee in his favour.” 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that asse

imposed penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) without any ESTABLISHING Submission of A. Inaccurate facts/Statements B. without Establishing CONCEALMENT OF INCOME as all mentioned by him was fetched by Submission of the Assessee and without doing any Act to take correct decision to impose penalty ... revenue authorities, and further submitted that since the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction under section 80DD of the Act and thus concealed the income therefore, penalty in the present case was rightly imposed. It was further argued that assessee has not disclosed his interest income in the income tax return

Ram Kishore Meena, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd, Morak, Kota

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed ... well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed

Manju Devi Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

case are that, while passing the assessment order, penalty proceedings under section 271(1) © of the Income Tax Act were initiated for concealment of income of Rs. 10,79,870/- and in the absence of compliance, penalty order was passed there by imposing penalty ... records I found that while passing the assessment order, penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)© of the Income Tax Act were initiated for concealment of income of Rs. 10,79,870/- by the AO and and penalty was imposed for concealment of income by the assessee. Where as in appeal