KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Section 32(2)(iii) of I.T. Act, 1961 and so was not admissible. The\nassessee firm filed its explanation to object notice u/s 154 and claimed that said\nunabsorbed depreciation is allowable to it as per law and cited various judicial\nprecedents on the issue in its favour. The Ld. A.O. without appreciating the legal\nposition as pronounced in various

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c) levied upon the\nassessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the\nsame was on account of change of law and therefore, a matter of bona\nfide mistake.\n(6) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SIDHARTHA\nENTERPRISES\nHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Section 32(2)(iii) of I.T. Act, 1961 and so was not admissible. The\nassessee firm filed its explanation to object notice u/s 154 and claimed that said\nunabsorbed depreciation is allowable to it as per law and cited various judicial\nprecedents on the issue in its favour. The Ld. A.O. without appreciating the legal\nposition as pronounced in various

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271 (1) (c) the penalty can be levied on concealment / inaccurate particulars of income. The Supreme Court in case of Price Water House Coopers P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 held that 'the assessee should have been careful but in absence of due care in a case did not mean that assessee was guilty of either furnishing

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation aggregating to Rs. 22,77,188/- on the above assets. Had the case has not been scrutinized u/s 143(3) proceedings an amount of Rs. 22,77.188/- would have been escaped from taxation. 3.1.1. The position of law regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)c) has undergone a substantial change after the insertion of Explanation

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)

section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing Inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to fumishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, that if 12 SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved i.e. it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee’s case is false, then no penalty can be imposed

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

depreciation wrongly claimed is subject to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR further drawn our attention to the findings of the ld. CIT(A) recorded in the para 5.2(vii) at page 11 where in the relying the apex court decision he submitted that the explanation to section

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

depreciation wrongly claimed is subject to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR further drawn our attention to the findings of the ld. CIT(A) recorded in the para 5.2(vii) at page 11 where in the relying the apex court decision he submitted that the explanation to section

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

depreciation wrongly claimed is subject to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR further drawn our attention to the findings of the ld. CIT(A) recorded in the para 5.2(vii) at page 11 where in the relying the apex court decision he submitted that the explanation to section

SUBHASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the penalty proceedings has been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5.1. It is pertinent to note that in the notice, AO has not clearly mentioned the limb, on the basis of which, penalty was proposed to be imposed

AMAN GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated against the assessee on the ground that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 30,05,184/- from Rajasthan State Government under the Scheme of Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme 2010 as Investment and Employment subsidy, which according to the revenue was found added in Capital Reserve Account

R. G. COLONISERS P LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, interest payment and processing fee on loans. The AO also made an addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act at the 3 ITA No. 931/JP/2018. M/s. R.G. Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. time of scrutiny assessment. Consequently, a total addition of Rs. 11,40,775/- was made by the AO. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

271 shall not apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 and subsequent assessment years and penalty be levied under the newly inserted section 270A with effect Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT from 1st April, 2017. The new section 270A provides for levy of penalty

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

271 shall not apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 and subsequent assessment years and penalty be levied under the newly inserted section 270A with effect Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT from 1st April, 2017. The new section 270A provides for levy of penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and explanation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and explanation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and explanation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and explanation