MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)—AO has not even specified in the notice the specific clause of s. 271AAB under which the penalty was sought to be levied—Word 'may' gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty, even if the assessee has made the default under the said provision—Impugned penalty was not sustainable. 2. Addition

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)

249 ITR 0125 (Guj-HC) 1.14. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vatika Construction (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 471 (Delhi), in which it has been held that “…Head Notes - Section 271(1)(c), read with sections 40A(3) and 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice u/s 271 (1) (c) for imposing of penalty without specifying the limb for reasons to impose penalty whether for concealment of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income is not as per law and assessing officer did not have any jurisdiction to impose penalty u/s 271

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

section 271(1)(c), the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The burden shifts to the assessee only if he fails to offer any explanation for the undisclosed income or offers an explanation which is found to be false by the assessing authority

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate undisclosed income unless circumstantial evidence in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside books is found

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate undisclosed income unless circumstantial evidence in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside books is found

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question has been assessed as income (ii) S.P.Goel vs DCIT 82 ITD 85 (Bom) Mere entry on a loose sheet of paper does not indicate undisclosed income unless circumstantial evidence in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside books is found

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

u/s 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 1986-87. In case of non-submission of such evidence, it is observed that there is delay of 21 years and 179 days as per Form No. 35. Therefore, please show cause as to why the appeal should not be treated as late filed as per provisions of section 249

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

4,89,159/- for calculation of capital gain. Record reveals that against the said disallowance of cost of acquisition the assessee has not challenged that quantum addition made by the ld.AO and since that being the fact the ld. AO for the said disallowance initiated penalty proceeding as per the provision of section 270A of the Act and thereby ordered

VIKRAM SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

249 ITR 0125 (Guj- HC) 9. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vatika Construction (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 ITA No.143/JP/2016_ 7 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur taxman.com 471 (Delhi) (Case Law Page 21), in which it has been held that “…Head Notes – Section 271

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c). In this case, in the quantum proceedings, ld. AO made addition on account of bogus purchases. Ld. CIT (A) disallowed the loss claimed by the Assessee on sale of some of the unbranded items out of the purported purchases. Further certain sum was added as additional income by applying the estimated gross profit rate

RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales tax Act, the court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. This court, therefore

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) was initiated by the Id. AO in order u/s. 143(3). The first appeal of the assessee was dismissed (P.B. pages 15 to 23) whereas the second appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT was partly allowed (P.B. pages 24 to 35) with direction to allow deduction @ 100% under section 10A of Act on enhanced profit

GIRDHAR GOPAL LAHOTI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KISHANGARH

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

section 211 (1)(c) deserves to be quashed and held bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the levy of penalty at Rs. 1,17,818/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the fact that there

DHARMENDRA KUMAR,BHANWARGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) is initiated. The assessee has not filed his return of income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271F is initiated. Tax u/s 115BBE is charged on Rs.16,03,000/- as per the addition is made u/s 69A. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal as per the provisions of Section 249(4

M/S. CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the levy of penalty on such addition is hereby deleted

section 271(IB) in terms of deemed satisfaction of the Assessing officer for initiation of penalty proceedings doesn’t apply in the instant case. Further, on perusal of relevant part of the assessment order, wherein the claim of exemption of the assessee u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) has been denied and surplus of receipts over expenditure has been brought

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI vs. SHRI PRATAP SINGH TANWAR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

249 ITR 125 (Guj.) (HC) Provisions of s. 68 are enabling provisions for making additions where the assessee fails to give an explanation regarding cash credit or where the explanation is not to the satisfaction of the AO. Such addition would not automatically justify imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) r/w Expln. 1 thereto. In order to justify

JARINA BEGUM,KOTA vs. ITO WARD -1(4), KOTA, KOTA

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

4), Kota vide order u/s 120 of the\nIT Act of the Addl. CIT. Range-1, Kota, dated 31.05.2018.\n3.1 The assessee did not comply the notice u/s 142(1) and not\nsubmitted the ITR for A.Y. 2017-18, therefore, based on the\nreasons recorded u/s 147 of the IT Act and approval u/s 151(2) of\nthe