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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be\nimposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on\naccount of excessive claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 1,59,000/- under\nchapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, for wrong claim of loss of Rs. 70,000/-\nunder the head house property

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be\nimposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on\naccount of excessive claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 1,59,000/- under\nchapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, for wrong claim of loss of Rs. 70,000/-\nunder the head house property

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be\nimposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on\naccount of excessive claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 1,59,000/- under\nchapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, for wrong claim of loss of Rs. 70,000/-\nunder the head house property

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties were

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, capital gain and other sources. The original return of income was e-filed on 31/10/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 15,46,83,000/-, which includes additional income officer to tax Rs. 14,97,82,023/- under the head ITA 419/JP/2018_ 2 Shri Ashok Kr. Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT cash advances, interest received on cash advances to various persons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,23,40,919/- imposed by the AO.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search & seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 17.12.2014 at the various premises of Vardhaman Group and the assessee, being one of the members of this group was also

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the matter has been decided on technical issue, we are not expressing any view on merit of the case. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by the ld CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 4. Hon’ble ITAT in its recent judgment in case

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.

house property on April 26, 1991 The Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and taxed this amount, ie difference of Rs. 1,40,000 as short-term capital gain. No appeal was preferred Therefore, that addition had become final. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

SHRI HARISH KUMAR VASWANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house. As held by the Coordinate Bench (supra), the uncertain charge at the time of initiation of penalty has been made good and substituted with a conclusive default at the time of passing the penalty order and that in such a case, no fault can be found in the penalty order.” In such a case, we donot see any infirmity

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property which has been found during the course of search. As per the definition of undisclosed income u/s 271AAB, the undisclosed investment in purchase of land cannot be stated to be income which is represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing. Whether it can then be said that such undisclosed investment represents income

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

house property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 took place on 07-01-2016 in the case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153B (1) (b) of 1. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29-12-2017. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 153A

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property, business and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 05.02.2015 in case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota and the assessee was part of the said Group. During the course of search proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein he has declared undisclosed income

SHRI RAM SHARAN GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, house property

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

properties sold; date and amount\nfor which the sales were affected are not in dispute. There is no report of filing\nincorrect facts. Mere submission of incorrect claim due to difference in\ninterpretation of rules or guidelines cannot fall under category of “filing incorrect\nparticulars of income”. In certain instances, making incorrect claim can also\nresult into penalty if such

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

property with disallowance of cost of improvement adjudicated by Ld Assessing officer and sustained by CIT(A). The aforesaid documents support the 3 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR stand of the Appellant that, the penalty of 22,60,090 levied under section 271(1)(c) is unjustified, as the disallowance

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 1.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the penalty imposed by ld. AO by brushing aside the fact the notice issued u/s 274 did not mention specific default on which penalty was sought to be levied. 1.2 That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the penalty

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Act, the AO noted that the assessee declared income from salary from Essar Investment Ltd. and claimed interest u/s 24(b) of Rs.1,50,000/- on self occupied property. The AO noted that in revised return the assessee declared income from house