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-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 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. 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

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) at Rs.\n13,945/- vide order dated 06.05.2024. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is\nclosely held public limited company. Return of income for the year relevant to\nappeal was filed by assessee on 15.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.\n34,95,030. Case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s\n143

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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