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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed in as much as a comparison has to be made between the return of income filed u/s 153 A viz-a-viz the assessed income.However, the facts ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 19 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. of the present case are on much stronger footing because the assessee admitted additional

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

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

u/s 153A), can by itself be treated as concealment warranting addition\nor penalty. The issue which is there in the appeal was already decided by the\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s SAS\nPharmaceuticals [2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi) wherein the High Court\nobserved that Section 271

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed in as much as a comparison has to be made between the return of income filed u/s 153 A viz-a-viz the assessed income.However, the facts\nof the present case are on much stronger footing because the assessee admitted additional

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)

additions made to the total income of the assessee from para no. (3) to (10) of the order above on account of claim of expenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period expenditure, contribution to CDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 80IA & disallowance u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

additions\nmade to the total income of the assessee from para no. (3) to (10) of the order\nabove on account of claim of expenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period\nexpenditure, contribution to CDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 801A &\ndisallowance u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

271(1)(c) was issued for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, where as penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1. At the time of passing the assessment order on 18.04.2017, the AD after discussing the addition made by him, stated Penalty proceedings u/s

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: -

additional income offered in the return filed u/s 1534 because of some discrepancy and error would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income attracting levy of penalty u/s 271

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty for furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income.\n8.3 If an addition is made by the AO then said action of the AO may\nlead to either furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the\nassessee or concealment of the particulars of income and therefore in such\na situation if the AO proposed to initiate the proceedings u/s 271

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/s 271(1)(c) for imposing of penalty\nwithout specifying the limb for reasons to impose the penalty, whether it is for concealed\nparticulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld CIT(A) has\nconsidered all the aspect and held that Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) is applicable\nas in this case, a search

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

additional income It is well settled principle of interpretation of penal\nprovisions that the same has to be construed strictly and no penalty cannot be imposed\nunless the case strictly fall within the legal parameters. We, therefore, direct the AO to\ndelete the penalty imposed u/s 271

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

additional income It is well settled principle of interpretation of penal\nprovisions that the same has to be construed strictly and no penalty cannot be imposed\nunless the case strictly fall within the legal parameters. We, therefore, direct the AO to\ndelete the penalty imposed u/s 271

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

additional income It is well settled principle of interpretation of penal\nprovisions that the same has to be construed strictly and no penalty cannot be imposed\nunless the case strictly fall within the legal parameters. We, therefore, direct the AO to\ndelete the penalty imposed u/s 271

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

additional income It is well settled principle of interpretation of penal\nprovisions that the same has to be construed strictly and no penalty cannot be imposed\nunless the case strictly fall within the legal parameters. We, therefore, direct the AO to\ndelete the penalty imposed u/s 271

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

additional income It is well settled principle of interpretation of penal\nprovisions that the same has to be construed strictly and no penalty cannot be imposed\nunless the case strictly fall within the legal parameters. We, therefore, direct the AO to\ndelete the penalty imposed u/s 271

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

addition of Rs 2,07,96,754/ is hereby made on account of undisclosed commission sales and added to the total income of the assessee for A.Y.2018-19. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, are being initiated separately. 5. For initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act, no reasons were given

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

additional income was not disclosed even in the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act , thereby proving the mens rea on the part of the assessee, when no such notice u/s 153A was issued for the subject assessment year and no return u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act for the subject assessment year was either filed

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the specific default committed by the appellant rendering the appellant liable to penalty under Income Tax Act. 4.2 Ld CIT(A) also erred in law in not quashing the patently illegal penalty order when the final show cause notice issued

J C ANTIQUES AND CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

additional sum of Rs.3,70,920/- suo motu offered by the appellant in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s. 148, there is no material on the basis of which the same could be treated as concealment. Mere revision of income cannot be a ground for levy of penalty. Therefore, penalty under section 271