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

150/-. While framing assessment, penalty\nproceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting\nto Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim of\nloss of Rs 70,000/- under the head house property income and for\nconcealing particulars

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

150/-. While framing assessment, penalty\nproceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting\nto Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim of\nloss of Rs 70,000/- under the head house property income and for\nconcealing particulars

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

150/-. While framing assessment, penalty\nproceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting\nto Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim of\nloss of Rs 70,000/- under the head house property income and for\nconcealing particulars

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.

150 is part of this order. Notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)© of the Act is issued separately on the issue discussed in para 3.1 of this order for concealment of income/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’ 16 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR Thus it is noticed that at the time of passing of assessment

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

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

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

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

u/s 271AAB(1)(c).\nIt is submitted that said notices were issued in a routine manner without\nmentioning under which clause of section 271AAB of the Act the assessee is\nliable for penalty. It submitted that section 271AAB(1) has three clauses (a) to (c)\nand each clause of sub-section (1) to sec. 271AAB provides the circumstances\nand violation

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

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

2), Jaipur.\n2.\nIn this appeal, the revenue has raised following ground: -\n\"Ground No. 1 whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 66,97,445/-\nlevied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ignoring

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

150\n(SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act\nnot specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently\nthe penalty order was set aside.\nHon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.\nin DBIT Appeal No. 534/2008 dated

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)

2 SHRI PARAS MAL JAIN VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 3. That the ld. CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in confirming the said penalty of Rs.2.50 lacs u/s 271AAB imposed by the AO although the notice issued by AO for initiating the penalty u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not in accordance with

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act and make a\nreference to the Jt. Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner.\n\nIn the result this ground of appeal is adjudicated in above terms and is hereby\ntreated as dismissed.\n\n6. Ground of Appeal No. 3 is as under:\n\nGround No. 3: Assessee craves the right to add, alter or amend

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

150 by invoking section 145(3), which was made in the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating the facts and submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings, which is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive 5) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in concluding the Appeal

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

150 by invoking section 145(3), which was made in the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating the facts and submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings, which is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive 5) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in concluding the Appeal

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