VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

loss which was subjected to scrutiny u/s 143(3) and subsequently disallowance was made on account of foreign travelling expenses, Interest payment, Cash credits and interest on investments, thus, total disallowance made in original order was within meaning of section 271(1)(c)—By virtue of disallowance which was disallowed was deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

loss which was subjected to scrutiny u/s 143(3) and subsequently disallowance was made on account of foreign travelling expenses, Interest payment, Cash credits and interest on investments, thus, total disallowance made in original order was within meaning of section 271(1)(c)—By virtue of disallowance which was disallowed was deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars

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.

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of Act which has been issued in printedletter without ticking / marking the applicable clause / without striking-off the irrelevant limb which reveals that the penalty was initiated as well as levied for both the charges. It is apparent that if AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, was satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars

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: -

penalty. The assessee has already declared income of Rs. 6,19,338/- in the return filed in 13 Sh. Bittal Das Parwal vs. ACIT response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act and for the disallowance carried forward loss he did not dispute. Thus, when the income is already offered and accepted in the ITR and thereafter disallowance of carried

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Loss from LTCG of Rs. 18,03,526/- allowed to be carry forward Assessed u/s 143(3)/148 at Rs. 59,24,480/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charge interest u/s 234 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Prepare ITNS-150 which enclosed with this order. Issue penalty notice u/s 271

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

loss-Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) was issued and query was asked regarding share application money received by Assessee-Assessee filed its reply mentioning therein that it had received share application money through cheques and drafts which was cleared by banks-However, in case of 12 applicants for which detailed list was separately enclosed, necessary documents were not there

SMT. ROSHNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

Bench: Us.

carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the said levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the return of income was filed in which the addition was made

SMT. ROSHNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

Bench: Us.

carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the said levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the return of income was filed in which the addition was made

SMT. ROSHNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

Bench: Us.

carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the said levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the return of income was filed in which the addition was made

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

carried forward unabsorbed business loss and depreciation the total income is determined as Rs.NIL. 5. In the penalty proceedings the assessee filed a detailed reply as reproduced at Para 7 page 4-8 of the penalty order. AO however held that even when addition is based on estimate concealment penalty can be levied. Assessee has followed Percentage completion method however

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

carrying out transactions and not disclosing its earnings to the department clearly show that the belief was not bonafide but intentional. Under the above circumstances and in view of the opinion propounded in the case laws cited above, I am of the opinion that penalty has been rightly imposed in this case, the conditions required for initiation are satisfied. There

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 AAC (1) and subsequent levy of penalty is ab initio bad in law and facts. On this aspect the Learned Assessing Officer has opined that the assessee having paid tax under section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 surmounts to the assessee having consented for addition under the provisions. This view of the Learned Assessing Officer is untenable

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 7,81,660/-, without considering the fact that income assessed u/s 143(3) is Nil and assessed u/s 143(3) w.r.s. 263 is also Nil. The difference in carry forward losses

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

forward business loss in its return of income would not be liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) when even allowance of such claim would have no financial implication for future [In favour of assessee]” 8 SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2.18 The disallowance by the ld. AO, in the quantum proceedings, was solely

REKHA SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. PR.CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B. 20 REKHA SHEKHAWAT VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR Detailed submissions on this aspect (in Para 3) were made before the Ld. CIT wherein, the decision in Keshrimal Parasmal (Supra) was cited but there appears no reference and no consideration at all of these submissions

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)

forward from earlier year (as is normal practice), however subsequently, mistake was rectified and Fixed Assets Register modified replaced giving effect to explanation 5 to Section 43(1). Appellant prays that depreciation was charged as per past prevalent practice under bonafide belief and claim so made by assessee, does not ipso facto amounts to under reporting and by no means

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,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)

forward from earlier year (as is normal practice), however subsequently, mistake was rectified and Fixed Assets Register modified replaced giving effect to explanation 5 to Section 43(1). Appellant prays that depreciation was charged as per past prevalent practice under bonafide belief and claim so made by assessee, does not ipso facto amounts to under reporting and by no means