DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

11. In fact, when the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings the AO appeared to be conscious of the fact that he did not have the power to issue notice as far as the penalty proceedings under Section 271-E was concerned. He, therefore, referred the matter concerning penalty proceedings under Section 271-E to the Additional

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice u/s 271\n(1) (c) for imposing of penalty without specifying the limb for reasons to impose\npenalty whether for concealment of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of\nincome is not as per law and assessing officer did not have any jurisdiction to\nimpose penalty u/s 271 (1

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

11. In the instant case, the notice initiating the penalty proceedings talks\nabout initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of\nundisclosed income of the specified previous year. However, while passing the\npenalty proceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected\nin the penalty order that the assessee is liable for penalty U/s

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

11. In the instant case, the notice initiating the penalty proceedings talks\nabout initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of\nundisclosed income of the specified previous year. However, while passing the\npenalty proceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected\nin the penalty order that the assessee is liable for penalty U/s

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)

section 271(1)(c) and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income as per working given below." As against the above argument, the appellant has relied upon number of judgments of honorable courts and Tribunal in his submissions. Some of the judgments on the issue are as under:- Commissioner of Income-tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

section 271(1)(c) and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is\nimposed on the concealed income as per working given below.\"\nAs against the above argument, the appellant has relied upon number of\njudgments of honorable courts and Tribunal in his submissions.\nSome of the judgments on the issue are as under:-\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

section 271(1)(c) and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income as per working given below.\"\nAs against the above argument, the appellant has relied upon number of judgments of honorable courts and Tribunal in his submissions.\nSome of the judgments on the issue are as under:-\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals

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

11- 8-11 04-2019 with Attachment – Demand Challan 6. Copy of order u/s 271(1)( c) on dated 25-06-2019 with copy of 12-20 computation of sheet of penalty on dated 25-06-2019 7. Copy of written submission filed by the assessee before the ld. 21-33 CIT(A) on dated 16-04-2024 with 1

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 271 (1)(b) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S No Particulars Page No. 01. Copy of Acknowledgement of Reply submitted Before CIT (A)- 11-01- 1

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 271 (1)(b) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S No Particulars Page No. 01. Copy of Acknowledgement of Reply submitted Before CIT (A)- 11-01- 1

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 271 (1)(b) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S No Particulars Page No. 01. Copy of Acknowledgement of Reply submitted Before CIT (A)- 11-01- 1

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a penalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee. 4. It is further submitted that in Para 11

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

11 of the penalty order AO held that the disallowance represent concealment\nof income and thus imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n\n2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which\nlimb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued

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.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, if the decision of this Court in case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) is considered, the resultant effect would be that the notice in question issued under Section 271(1)(c) for levy of penalty and consequently the penalty imposed, both would be unsustainable and cannot stand

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 the assessee filed Return of Income on 07.11.2019 declaring income of Rs. 42,30,170.00. Due tax as per provisions of section 115BBE was paid by the assessee before filing the revised Return of income. At this juncture would like to draw your honours kind attention to section 271 AAC (1) which reads

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same. The ground of appeal raised by assessee is thus, allowed. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. 5. Anshu Sharma, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur on 11 April, 2023- We are satisfied that non-appearance

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

u/s 271(1)(c), he\nreiterated that 'assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or had\nconcealed income'Whether since there was no clarity in mind of Assessing\nOfficer as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) got attracted and\nwhether penalty was initiated for concealment of particulars\nor furnishing inaccurate particulars, Tribunal was justified in deleting\nimpugned penalty

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed unjustified since there was no deliberate attempt to conceal income. The ruling reaffirmed that agricultural income remains tax- free, and its deposit into a bank account does not change its nature or make it liable for taxation. 2. Vinaya Sharma vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur, November 2024) 2.1. Facts of the Case: Vinaya