KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

271(1)(c)\nof the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 2,79,985/- imposed by him is\nwrong and bad in law.\n2.\nThat without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in\nlaw in confirming penalty

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

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

depreciation\nis also not admissible and hence not allowed to be carried forward and accordingly\ncompleted the assessment at 'nil' income ignoring the loss returned by the assessee.\nWe further find that the Assessing Officer without initiating any penalty proceedings\nduring the course of assessment proceedings-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not leviable in the instant appeal.” Against the order of the NFApC, the Appellant has filed an appeal before your honors Submission:- 4. The Respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing of cement. Limestone is the primary raw material for manufacture of cement. It entered into mining lease

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.\nAct. Against the levy of penalty in the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on\nthe decision of P & H high Court in case of CIT v. Modi Industrial\nCorporation (2010) 195 taxmann.com 68 and Delhi HC in case of CIT v.\nAero Traders (P) Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 316, deleted

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) it is also mentioned that the addition made earlier was sustained.’’ 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted the following written submission. 3. So far as penalty levied in respect of disallowance of amortization of surface rights and depreciation

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)

271 shall not apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 and subsequent assessment years and penalty be levied under the newly inserted section 270A with effect Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT from 1st April, 2017. The new section 270A provides for levy of penalty

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)

271 shall not apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 and subsequent assessment years and penalty be levied under the newly inserted section 270A with effect Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT from 1st April, 2017. The new section 270A provides for levy of penalty

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c). In this case, in the quantum proceedings, ld. AO made addition on account of bogus purchases. Ld. CIT (A) disallowed the loss claimed by the Assessee on sale of some of the unbranded items out of the purported purchases. Further certain sum was added as additional income by applying the estimated gross profit rate

SEAWARD EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation @ 15%. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income after recording necessary satisfaction in the assessment

CHAND MONAMMAD,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) has not yet been levied and only notice has been issued. Even otherwise penalty proceedings are separate from assessmentproceedings. Hence, this GOA No. 4 is dismissed. 8. In view of above facts the appeal is DISMISSED.’’ 2.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter before this Bench of ITAT

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)

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263. 3. The appellant craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated against the assessee on the ground that the assessee had received

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 3. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Since both the appeal is of the same assessee and related to same assessment year and argued

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 of the Constitution, by way of section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

271(1)(c), the penalty. The action is unjustified. illegal or\nexcessive and deserves to be deleted in full.\n\n6.1 The ground is general in nature. The grounds are pre-matture as these are\nagainst mere initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings are\nindependent proceedings and the appellant is required to make his submissions\nbefore the appropriate authority during