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

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)\n(c) of the Act. At this stage

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

section 271(1)(c), the Id. AO\nfound that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of\nincome to the extent of amount of Rs. 1,97,04,164/-. For that reason, he\nhold that the 'Assessee' has committed default u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act\nand, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed on the 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 (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

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

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(1)(c), but the ratio related to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is pari materia with provisions of section 270A dealing with misreporting of income. In addition the ld. AR of the asseseee also invited our attention to the the latest case laws related to penalty u/s 270A namely Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2024) 158 Taxmann.com