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

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

d) Issue of addition not done under section 69 of the Act.-\nThe appellant has contended that the Ld AO has not determined it as income\nfrom other sources u/s 69 of Income Tax Act in the assessment but accepted as\nincome of current year. Therefore merely on the basis of surrender made in the\nsearch statement, this cannot

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

11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the\ncase of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court\nin the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 taxman 156, has held that\nlevy of penalty has to be clear

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)

D-GOA. 3.3 The search action took place at a later point of time on 28.07.2016. Notably and admittedly again in the ROI filed u/s 153A on 08.04.2017, same income of Rs. 3.94Cr. was declared. 3.4 There was no variation was made so far as the additional income of Rs. 3.95Cr. declared by the assessee is concerned. Kindly

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

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

11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi) wherein it was held where income surrendered by assessee during survey had been shown by it in its regular income-tax return filed within prescribed time, penalty could be imposed. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the above decisions and deleted the penalty on the declared income of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. However

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

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

11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi) wherein it was held where\nincome surrendered by assessee during survey had been shown by it in its regular\nincome-tax return filed within prescribed time, penalty could be imposed. Thus\nthe Ld. CIT(A) has followed the above decisions and deleted the penalty on the\ndeclared income of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. However

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

D". 11 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR 4.8. The Appellant thus requests Your Honors to kindly direct the Assessing officer to delete the penalty levied upon by the Assessing Officer. The appellant shall be grateful if the above submissions are considered while disposing of the appeals for the year under consideration.’’ To support

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)

11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] – wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1

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.

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. (e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. 22 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR (f) Ever if there

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)

271 AAC (1) and subsequent levy of penalty is ab initio bad in law and facts. On this aspect the Learned Assessing Officer has opined that the assessee having paid tax under section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 surmounts to the assessee having consented for addition under the provisions. This view of the Learned Assessing Officer is untenable

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

d) is deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. “ 3. In the other case law of PARULBEN JAYKANT SHA... V. ITO, WARD- 3(1) SURAT, DECIDED ON 03.08.2012 wherein it was held that We find that is not clear from it the penalty order that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was imposed

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

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: -

11 Sh. Bittal Das Parwal vs. ACIT to section 271 (1) (c) are not applicable. Therefore when returned income u/s 153A is accepted there is no default u/s 271 (1) (c) and deleted the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c). The case is covered from this judgement. The appellant further relies on the following judicial pronouncements:  The Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal

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)

11. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of HARIGOPAL SINGH v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 has held that: Penaltycannot be levied when income has been estimated - Where the assessee had not maintained any accounts but had filed his return of income on estimate basis, and the Assessing Officer made his own estimate with which the Tribunal

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:-

11. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of HARIGOPAL SINGH v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 has held that: Penaltycannot be levied when income has been estimated - Where the assessee had not maintained any accounts but had filed his return of income on estimate basis, and the Assessing Officer made his own estimate with which the Tribunal

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMIED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujrat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxmann 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear