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

deduction u/s 80-IA and disallowance u/s 14A.\n\nThereafter on the last page of the assessment order, it is mentioned that penalty\nproceedings 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 @\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

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by invoking Explanation 5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect of cash found in previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, merely on presumption that assessee might have been in possession of cash throughout period covered by search assessments - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] Words and Phrases : Word

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

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming