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

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

158 (SC) wherein, the Supreme Court's held as under:\n7.\n7.1\n“If we accept the contention of the Revenue, then In the case of every return, where the claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature

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

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have\nbeen passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO\nis clearly barred by limitation.\n\n6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of\nincome on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance u/s

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)

u/s 14A when exempt income is earned constitutes furnishing of inaccurate particulars, inviting penalty under Section 271(1)(c). C. More Penalty-Supporting Precedents Reliance PetroproductsPvt. Ltd. v. CIT Citation: (2010) 322 ITR 158

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)

158) and CIT v. Ashim Kumar Agarwal (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

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)

u/s 271(1)(c), on the trading additions and commission payment sustained in the quantum proceedings of Rs. 4,42,953, worked out on estimate basis. 5 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 1.2. During the course of quantum proceedings, before the lower authorities, all the details of the purchases made by the assessee firm from the parties, alleged

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty be imposed, independently of the quantum proceedings. ii. The first and foremost requirement of Section 69 is establishing of fact that the investment is really and conclusively made with the support of direct and cogent material on record. Neither in quantum proceedings nor even in penalty proceedings, any such evidence

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 271(1) (c). The AO further follows the decision of Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) and decides that it is not mandatory for the revenue to prove mens- rea in order to levy penalty and therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 16,64,000/- u/s 271

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

158 (SC) wherein, the Supreme Court's held as under: “If we accept the contention of the Revenue, then In the case of every return, where the claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature.” 3. No penalty

RAM KISHORE MEENA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD, MORAK, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5.1.5 In it's submission the appellant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. M/s Reliance Petro products Pvt Ltd (322 ITR 158). The facts of the case and submissions are considered. In the instant case there is disagreement

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely submitting an incorrect claim of a genuine expenditure which assessee may not have been utilized in view of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Appellant relies upon the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

section 158 BFA(2)) (iv) CIT V. P.H.I. Seeds India Ltd. 159 Taxman 9 (Delhi) The act does envisage or explicitly provide that in every case where return is not accepted as correct and assessment is framed at a higher income than that presented, penalty proceedings u/s 271

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the\nundisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1).\n(3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be,\napply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this section,—\n(a) \"specified date\" means the due date

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

section 271(1)(c), the Id. AO\nfound that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of\nincome to the extent of amount of Rs. 1,97,04,164/-. For that reason, he\nhold that the 'Assessee' has committed default u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act\nand, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed on the furnishing

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

158 (SC). The copy of judgment is placed along with these submissions and marked hereto a s Annexure-"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

SH. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

158 (SC) A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word "particulars" used in section

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c). Therefore, in view of the Delhi High Court Judgment and ITAT Mumbai Bench Judgement the assessee's case will fall under the category of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act was rightly imposed by the AO.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR supported

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) treating aforesaid amount as concealed income of\nassessee Tribunal, however, set aside penalty order - Whether it could be said\nthat explanation of assessee for non-inclusion of amount in question in his return\nof income was bona fide Held, yes Whether, therefore, order passed by\nTribunal setting aside penalty proceedings was just and proper – Held

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)

158 (SC) is quite useful in as much as in that case it was held that w.r.t. return "Penalty under s. 271(1)(c)—Concealment—Disallowance of claim for deduction— In order to attract the provisions of s. 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of his income by the assessee