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

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

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 (1

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

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation and the Assessing Officer did not honour the agreement. 3.1.2. After the coming of Sec. 271AAA applicability of Sec. 271(1)(c) has been completely ruled out by Sec. 271AAA(3). Moreover, the provisions of Sec. 271AAA starts with a non-obstante clause and overrides all other provisions of the Income Tax Act which essentially includes Sec. 271(1

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted and thus rightly deleted the levy of penalty on the above disallowance. In view of the above 10 DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR VS BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD., JAIPUR deliberation, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the Ground No. 1 of the Revenue. 3.1 Apropos

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271AAB to levy the penalty and thereby the order of levying the penalty is against the principles of natural justice. The ld. AR of the assessee relying on the various judgement cited in his written submission submitted that when there is no income which is corroborated with the 46 Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur relevant asset found

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out in the show cause notice the charge against the assessee and also whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of civil construction on contract basis. It filed return of income on 30th

SHRI VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

271 (1)( c) have to be looked at and an adjudication made as to whether the A has attempted to conceal any income[ taxable income] at all or has filed any inaccurate particulars of income, which could have enabled the AO to levy any penalty under that provision . In the light of judgments elaborated herein below, it would also have

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

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

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

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