“Section 271(1)”

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The brief facts ... income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The brief facts ... income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The brief facts ... income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Centeral Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The brief facts ... income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. Dcitl Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016-17. 2. The brief facts ... income offered by the assessee was accepted and assessments were completed without significant variation, the AO proceeded to initiate and levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty

Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai PAN (HUF), Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.958/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (Huf) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) बनाम 703-, Pyramid Tower Rajkot. Bansi Park Vs. Amin Marg Rajkot 360 001. Pan : Aaohs 9548 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposed by the assessing officer, therefore, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Sanjaykumar Vallabhbhai Pan (HUF) ITA No.958 /RJT/2024 ... other hand, the ld.DR for the Revenue, relied on the findings of the impugned penalty order under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessing officer in the assessee’s case

Rajeev Mishra, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Seoni

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

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

documentary evidences for the same. Therefore, the ld. AO made an addition of Rs.701000/- in this regard and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The ld. AO also observed that the assessee, who is a property developer had shown a sum of Rs.1,04,56,475/- towards land

Nagar Panchayat, Banda vs. The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Sagar, Sagar

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. 12. That The Ld. AO has misdirected himself in law in initiating penalties under section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 13. That the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the above addition on mere conjectures

V. M. Maniyar Exports, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1368/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) V.M.Maniyar Exports Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.103-104, Surat Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat Vs. Special Economic Zone, Gidc, Sachin,Surat-394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifv 6884 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

assessee failed to give any justification or acceptable explanation for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the case falls within the mischief of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levied minimum penalty of Rs.2,60,720/-, being @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded ... Rs.29,58,065 to Rs.21,14,313/-. The assessee has, therefore, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. A bare analysis of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act makes it evident that where in the case of any proceedings under the Act, the AO is satisfied that