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

271 (1) (c) cannot be imposed”.\nIn view of above facts of the case penalty order is not sustainable in law and\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/- imposed by Ld. A.O. being wrong and bad in law which\ndeserves to be deleted.\nGround No. (3)\nThat the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds

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). That is clearly not the\nintendment of the legislature.\"\nNo penalty in S.148/153A cases:\nIt is further pertinent to note that even in the cases where the assessee did\nnot disclose the income in the return of income filed originally u/s 139(1) but later\non when notice u/s153A has been issued and the assessee disclosed

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). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature.” 7. No penalty in S.148/153A cases: 7.1 It is further pertinent to note that even in the cases where the assessee did not disclose the income in the return of income filed originally u/s 139(1) but later on when notice u/s153A has been issued

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). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature.\"\nNo penalty in S.148/153A cases:\nIt is further pertinent to note that even in the cases where the assessee did not disclose the income in the return of income filed originally u/s 139(1) but later on when notice u/s153A has been issued and the assessee disclosed

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

153 (PUNE):- “..The views expressed by Their Lordships in Dharamendra Textile Processors’ case (supra) cannot be viewed as an authority for the proposition that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is an automatic consequence of an addition being made to income of the taxpayer, for the reason that whether it is a civil liability or a criminal liability, penalty

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

153 Taxman 226) respectively where it was held that where the assessee surrenders his full income, though at a later stage, there was no question of any concealment on his part and consequently no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable, and that a omission from retum of income did not amount to concealment. 11. In view

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

153 of the I.T. Act. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S.D.V. Chandu (supra), we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Explanation 5(2) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income