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 of Rs.5,18,55,995/- u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering that the assessee\nwas eligible for depreciation

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

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 ITR 335 held that where the assessee, a new businessman claimed depreciation for the full year in the first year of starting production though he was entitled only to fractional depreciation, it was a case of bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee. Such a ground cannot be a good ground for imposition of penalty u/s

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

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation aggregating to Rs. 22,77,188/- on the above assets. Had the case has not been scrutinized u/s 143(3) proceedings an amount of Rs. 22,77.188/- would have been escaped from taxation. 3.1.1. The position of law regard to levy of penalty u/s 271

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty imposed by the Learned AO on the basis of that in the quantum proceedings the Hon’ble ITAT sustained the addition on account of income surrendered by the assessee during the course of search. The learned CIT(A) has also mentioned on page 13 of the appellate order that the surrender of income was not voluntary and the income

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

depreciation wrongly claimed is subject to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR further

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

depreciation wrongly claimed is subject to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR further

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

depreciation wrongly claimed is subject to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR further

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

SHRI VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 40(a)(ia). ITAT 's order cancelling the penalty was sustained by the High Court. 2. CIT v HP State Forest Corporation Ltd. 120121 340 ITR 204(H.P.) In this case the Hon 'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken the view that where assessee discloses the basic facts and does not conceal any material fact, no penalty could

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

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 the same is not followed

SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, being revenue neutral over the years and similarly argument of not imposing penalty on unpaid liability u/s 43B on the plea that in the subsequent year same would be allowed on payment basis, is of no avail. The Hon’ble ITAT has further held that whether conditions stipulated u/s 271

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

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

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

M/S. LAXMINATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,CHURU. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.”

penalty of Rs. 1,05,000/- under the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing. 5. The petitioner prays for justice & relief.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed