VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

b) Notice u/s 274 Further in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271 of the I. Tax Act dated 30.09.2015 (copy enclosed). A.O. mentioned that: - "Concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." c) Notice dated 09.01.2018 Further in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271

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

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

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) Notice u/s 274 Furthur in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16-02-2015 (copy enclosed) A.O. issued printed notice by putting against • have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) initiate for undisclosed income of the specified year

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

B" Shri Ajoy Sharma Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 543 to 547/JP/2024-Annexure "C" 4.6. The penalty of ₹2,60,090 levied u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified as the disallowance of 1,53,549 towards cost of improvement and Rs. 35,000 towards transfer expenses was made only due to non submission of bills during assessment. In this connection

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

B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount

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

B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount

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

B' Third Member Bench (2001 73 TTJ (Ahd) 171. (v) CIT vs Bengal Galvanising Works (1987) 165 ITR 249 (Cal) (vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. Other favourable case laws – (i) National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) It is not enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount

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

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

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)

b) is initiated. The assessee has concealed the particulars of his income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 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

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)

4 (Bombay) The Bombay High Court ruled that where the assessee had disclosed all facts material for computation of income, the mere fact that such a claim was not acceptable would not justify imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate 7 Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Jaipur. particulars. The court stressed on the difference between “making an incorrect claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

u/s 148 he accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income. And if he intends to do so a fresh notice

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. As regards the penalty levied on account of addition of Rs. 2,14,309/- made u/s 41(1)(a) of the Act the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that there was an opening balance as on 01.04.2004 of Rs. 5,14,409/- as payable to a firm named M/s Shree Gurukripa

JHUNJHUNBALAJI MOTORS PVT.LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT CIRCLE-JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

penalty under section 271.\nThe following issues arise. -\n(i) The appellant claims to have been prevented by sufficient cause from\nproducing the evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal. The sufficient\ncause is stated to health reasons of the Director of the assessee company and\nhis wife. In this regard, it is noted that the appellant

JHUNJHUNBALJI MOTORS PVT.LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

penalty under section 271.\nThe following issues arise. -\n(i) The appellant claims to have been prevented by sufficient cause from\nproducing the evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal. The sufficient\ncause is stated to health reasons of the Director of the assessee company and\nhis wife. In this regard, it is noted that the appellant

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

B) to sec. 271(1)(c) that while computing the total income of an assessee, if the assessee fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide then there will be a deemed concealment by the assessee. In the instant case, the assessee made attempts to secure those creditors to be examined before the ITO. Despite the best efforts