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) and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is\nimposed on the concealed income as per working given below.\"\nAs against the above argument, the appellant has relied upon number of\njudgments of honorable courts and Tribunal in his submissions.\nSome of the judgments on the issue are as under:-\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals

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

199\n(Delhi\nHeld:\nTrib.)\nCSR expenditure is application of income and not incurred wholly for business\npurposes. Hence, not allowable and claiming the same invites penalty under\nSection\n271(1)(c) in absence of bona\nfide\nexplanation.\n\nB. Cases Supporting Disallowance under Section 14A\n\nPCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.)Ltd.\nCitation:\n[2019]\n414\nITR\n122

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)

199 (Delhi - Trib.) Held: CSR expenditure is application of income and not incurred wholly for business purposes. Hence, not allowable and claiming the same invites penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in absence of bona fide explanation. B. Cases Supporting Disallowance under Section 14A PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.)Ltd. Citation: [2019] 414 ITR 122 (Delhi HC) Held:Even

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

199/- and Rs. 1,20,43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

199/- and Rs. 1,20,43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

199/- and Rs. 1,20,43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

271(1)(c) therefore does’nt support the case of the assessee company. In our considered view, both the provisions of section 271AAB(1)(a) and 271AAB(1)(c) provides for levy of penalty for an identical charge i.e, undisclosed income for the specified previous year which is found during the course of search initiated under section

MURARILAL MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). ITA 773/JP/2016_ 4 Murarilal Mittal Vs ACIT (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) "undisclosed

RAJESH KUMAR BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable not only for concealing the income but also for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It has been held the word 'income' in section 271(1)(c) is not used in the popular sense of money received but connotes the assessable figures arrived at after accounting for all the legitimate and exemptions (Naginchand

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any Explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer is silent about

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any Explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer is silent about

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Penalty notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) is issued separately.” The entire finding of the AO is based on the information received from the Investigation Wing Kolkata and statement of Shri Anand Sharma. The ld. CIT (A) though has not disputed the legal proposition on this issue, however, the contention of the assessee was turned down merely