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)

Section 271(1)© , the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs.2,67,647/-. For that reason, I am satisfied that ‘’Assessee’’ has committed default u/s 271(1)( c) of theI.T. Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

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:-

Section 271(1)© , the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs.2,67,647/-. For that reason, I am satisfied that ‘’Assessee’’ has committed default u/s 271(1)( c) of theI.T. Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ignoring the fact that the assessee has\nnot disclosed the profit on the advances received from the customer and\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income. So first we would like to\nexamine what tantamount to \"furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\",\nthe Act does not give any definition. Thus, we see the meaning

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

u/s 271(1)(c). I therefore, proceed to levy penalty of Rs. 7,73,859/-. ” 30 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 21. We therefore find that uncertain charge at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings is followed by a certain charge and definite finding at the time of passing the penalty proceedings as to the concealment

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)

section 143(2) was issued on 18.10.2010 i.e. only after 5 months. Therefore, it cannot be said that revised return was filed voluntarily by assessee. 2.3.2 Further, Assessing Officer in assessment order initiated penalty by specifically mentioning that assessee has concealed income and finally imposed penalty on concealment of income. This shows the clear finding on Assessing Officer's part

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. VIJAY KUMAR SAINI, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

150/-. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant furnished only revised computation of total income, but neither any revised ROI was found available on e-filing portal/departmental system nor furnished by the appellant. The revised computation of total income had not been taken into consideration. However, considering the facts, the assessee himself has admitted his undisclosed sales

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961. In this connection\nit is submitted that the section 271AAB of Act has three limbs as specified in Section i.e.\n271AAB (1) (a), (b) & (c) and the notice dated 30-03-2016 sent to assessee alongwith\nassessment order does not specify in which limb the penalty sought to be levied and only\nmentioning

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

u/s 271AAB(1)(a)of the I T Act, 1961. In this connection it is submitted that the section 271AAB of Act has three limbs as specified in Section i.e. 271AAB (1) (a), (b) & (c) and the notice dated 21-03-2016 sent to assessee alongwith assessment order does not specify in which limb the penalty sought to be levied

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 of the Constitution, by way of section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income

SMT. KRISHNA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI,, ALWAR

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar. 2. In ITA No. 434/JP/2023, the assessee has marched this Smt. Krishna vs. ITO appeal on the following grounds:- “1. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal & bad in law as the same has been passed

SMT. KRISHNA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar. 2. In ITA No. 434/JP/2023, the assessee has marched this Smt. Krishna vs. ITO appeal on the following grounds:- “1. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal & bad in law as the same has been passed

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response to which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of Rs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 153C on 30.03.2018, in response to which the assessee filed ITR on 13.04.2018, disclosing an income of Rs.1,68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description