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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

deduction u/s 80IB and disallowance of Rs.1,44,263/- made u/s 40(a)(ia)\nhas been deleted. Further, tradition addition of Rs. 3,00,000 which is being\nconfirmed by ld. CIT(A) is solely on estimate basis and accordingly no penalty\nwas levied by ld. AO on this issue. However, ld AO in his penalty order dated\n25.03.2019

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 @\n300% u/s 271(1)(c)—CIT(A) dismissed claim of deduction u/s 80-\nIA, however cancelled penalty-Tribunal upheld

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

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

deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss from house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271

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

deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss from house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271

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

deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss from house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271

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

deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss from house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271

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

deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss from house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 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)

penalty of Rs.16,64,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on reduction in deduction u/s 80IB of the Act by avoiding

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)

deducted at source, tax collected at source and self assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148. However in the present case the return of income was filed by the appellant u/s 139(1) of the Act wherein the income surrendered during the survey was duly disclosed. The argument in the penalty order that penalty was initiated

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.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© for filing of inaccurate particular of income / concealment of income are initiated by way of issue of notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act. 4. Subject to above remarks total income of the assessee is recomputed as under:- Income as declared by the assessee as per original return. Income from business or profession Rs.61

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

deductions claimed. Copy of Acknowledgement along with the submission dated 21.03.2024 for the A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 is enclosed herewith. 8. That it is pertinent to note that, the ld. CIT(A) for the preceding year i.e Assessment year 2007-2008 deleted the penalty-imposed u/s 271

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

deductions claimed. Copy of Acknowledgement along with the submission dated 21.03.2024 for the A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 is enclosed herewith. 8. That it is pertinent to note that, the ld. CIT(A) for the preceding year i.e Assessment year 2007-2008 deleted the penalty-imposed u/s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) to the assessee for the same addition. 5. Assessee company was not right person to allege that it has taken cash loan and the same were taken by some other persons. 6. Complete working was not given either assessment stage or penalty proceeding stage: - 7. The first onus is on department to show that the assessee company

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) to the assessee for the same addition. 5. Assessee company was not right person to allege that it has taken cash loan and the same were taken by some other persons. 6. Complete working was not given either assessment stage or penalty proceeding stage: - 7. The first onus is on department to show that the assessee company

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)

u/s 271(1)(c). Hence this ground. Submissions: 1. Assessment and penalty - separate proceedings: It is pertinent to note that the AO has levied the penalty for concealment of income only & only on the basis of findings recorded by the AO in the assessment order. It is settled that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from each other

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

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

deducted at source, tax collected at source and self assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148.\nHowever in the present case the return of income was filed by the appellant u/s 139(1) of the Act wherein the income surrendered during the survey was duly disclosed. The argument in the penalty order that penalty was initiated

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

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

deducted at source, tax collected at\nsource and self assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148.\nHowever in the present case the return of income was filed by the appellant u/s\n139(1) of the Act wherein the income surrendered during the survey was duly\ndisclosed. The argument in the penalty order that penalty was initiated