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

271 (1) (c) cannot be imposed”.\nIn view of above facts of the case penalty order is not sustainable in law and\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/- imposed by Ld. A.O. being wrong and bad in law which\ndeserves to be deleted.\nGround No. (3)\nThat the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

disallowed said payments - Assessing Officer also passed penalty order under section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

section\n271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by\nassessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in\nbalance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of\nassessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS on account of non-\ndeposit of same with Government, Tribunal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

disallowed said payments - Assessing Officer also passed penalty order under section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

271(1)(c) by holding that the\namount of Rs.2,13,17,575/- added or disallowed by the AO which has reached\nfinality in computing the total income of the assessee shall, for the purpose of\nclause (c) of this sub-section

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) by holding that the amount of Rs.2,13,17,575/- added or disallowed by the AO which has reached finality in computing the total income of the assessee shall, for the purpose of clause (c) of this sub-section

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n– Penalty – For concealment of income (General) - Where penalty proceedings u/s\n271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but,\nin penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) AO alleged that assessee had concealed its income,\norders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled [In favor

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

disallowance of carried forward does not mean providing inaccurate particular of income or concealed the particulars of income. Based on that factual matter and relying on the explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB by\nholding that assessee had made wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB-\nAO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on ground of furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income by assessee- CIT(A) deleted penalty imposed\nby AO u/s 271(1)(c)—Held, AO passed order under section

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)

disallowance made by the assessing officer is upheld by the appellate authorities, that in itself will not make the assessee liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." Therefore, as per limb (B) of Explanation (1) to section 271

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

271(1)(c). The penalty on the grounds of the concealment can be imposed if there conscious and deliberate concealment of income on the part of the assessee. There is no melafide act of omission or commission and provision of section 271/271(1)(c) are not attracted. The deduction claimed u/s 801B was disallowed

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallow said payments under section 40A(3), assessee offered that its income might be computed by applying net profit rate of 8 per cent of gross receipts - Assessing Officer having accepted 8 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR assessee's offer, made addition in terms of section 44AD - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)© : Concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 271A : Failed to keep, maintain, or retain books of accounts, documents etc. as required u/s 44AA. 271B : Failed to get the accounts audited or obtain audit report as required under section 44AB or furnish such report alongwith return under section 139(1) or in response to notice under

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowed said payments - Assessing Officer also passed penalty order under section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of 15% of purchases but ordered to assess the income of assessee on average gross profit declared and admitted by the A.O.. Thus, in this way, the purchases which was held unverifiable cannot be held to be bogus and the addition on the basis of estimation do not fall within the purview of Section 271 (1) (c

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 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.

disallowance out of the purchases held unverifiable in the case for this year. Thus the addition is estimated and unsubstantiated addition which do not fall within the purview of Section 271 (1) (c

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

section 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out in the show cause notice, whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that as far as addition of Rs. 2,79,000/- and of Rs. 10,05,301/- confirmed