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

disallowance is made, there is no reference of\ninitiation of penalty proceedings though in para 11 of the order penalty proceeding is stated\nto be initiated against certain additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\nHoweverat the end of the assessment order it is stated that penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance does not\nautomatically result in levy of penalty. Appellant prays penalty\nlevied mechanically by solely relying upon conclusion drawn in\nassessment proceedings deserves to be deleted.\n2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the present appeal is filed against the order of\nld. CIT(A) confirming the action of ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271

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

disallowed in an assessment and the order contains a direction Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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

disallowed in an assessment and the order contains a direction Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT for initiation of penalty proceedings 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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB by\nholding that assessee had made wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB-\nAO levied penalty u/s 271

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

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

disallowed in an assessment and the order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c), it shall

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 had been concealed—Minimum penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 had been concealed—Minimum penalty

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 153A/143(3) of I.T. Act on total income of Rs. 6,18,980/- which included the addition of Rs. 33,892/- made by the AO on account of disallowance made from various expenses. In penalty proceedings, the AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,36,145/- being 100% of tax payable on additional income

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 153A: 8.1 In Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that: “…………. Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

disallowed 25% which was added in total income of assessee and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. On appeal

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:-

Disallowance (Assessing restricted (25%) officer) (CIT-A) 2008-2009 2405836 601459 333812 2009-2010 178783 44696 40548 Copy of order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the addition made u/s 143/147 of the Act for the Assessment year 2008-2009 and 2009- 2010 is enclosed herewith. 4. That penalty proceeding 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: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Disallowance (Assessing restricted (25%) officer) (CIT-A) 2008-2009 2405836 601459 333812 2009-2010 178783 44696 40548 Copy of order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the addition made u/s 143/147 of the Act for the Assessment year 2008-2009 and 2009- 2010 is enclosed herewith. 4. That penalty proceeding u/s 271

SHRI KANHEYA LAL,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

penalty proceedings Section 271(1B) provides that any amount is added or disallowance in the total income of the assessee and the assessment order contains a direction for initiation of proceedings U/s

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

disallowance made by the\nAssessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and\nafter providing due opportunity of hearing, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee\nhas filed inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore, the Assessing Officer levied\npenalty u/s 271

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

disallowance made by the\nAssessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and\nafter providing due opportunity of hearing, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee\nhas filed inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore, the Assessing Officer levied\npenalty u/s 271

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

disallowance made by the\nAssessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and\nafter providing due opportunity of hearing, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee\nhas filed inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore, the Assessing Officer levied\npenalty u/s 271