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) of the Act has to be construed strictly. Unless it is\nfound that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of\nincome, penalty cannot be imposed. In the penalty order there is no finding\nregarding where the concealment is vis-à-vis the returned income. As per the facts\nof the case

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) of the Act has to be construed strictly. Unless it is found that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. In the penalty order there is no finding regarding where the concealment is vis-à-vis the returned income. As per the facts of the case

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) of the Act has to be construed strictly. Unless it is found that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. In the penalty order there is no finding regarding where the concealment is vis-à-vis the returned income. As per the facts of the case

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)

25-94), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.40,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.37,19,337/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to show cause why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) may not be imposed. The assessee filed reply on 19.03.2019 (PB 18-24). However

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

25-94), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\nDisallowance of CSR Expenses\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nRs.40,42,000/-\nRs.37,19,337/-\n\nAfter the order of Hon'ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to\nshow cause why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) may not be imposed. The assessee filed\nreply

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

25,62,505/- to the income of\nthe assessee.\nThe Learned Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c) observing “ penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is being\ninitiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of\nincome/concealed income\". Subsequently a penalty of Rs.\n5,18,55,995/- has been imposed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c ) of the I.T.Act as well as penalties levied u/s 271AAB of the I.T.Act on the income voluntary disclosed in the returns of income. This decision has also been followed by the Honble ITAT in its decision dated 18.02.2020 in IT(SS) A No 260/AHD /2017 in the case of Lajwantiben M Manglani Vs DCIT Central Circle

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, 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). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) is wrong, unwarranted, bad in law as the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, are different defaults and they cannot be intermixed. 22. Now, coming to the other contention of the ld AR. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that there is no concealment or reporting of inaccurate particulars

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) is wrong, unwarranted, bad in law as the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, are different defaults and they cannot be intermixed. 22. Now, coming to the other contention of the ld AR. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that there is no concealment or reporting of inaccurate particulars

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

25 Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal vs DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case notice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads as under: “Penalty Notice Under Section 274, Read with Section 271

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

25 R.P. Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer. (2) No penalty under the provisions of 53[section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of Act which has been issued in printedletter without ticking / marking the applicable clause / without striking-off the irrelevant limb which reveals that the penalty was initiated as well as levied for both the charges. It is apparent that if AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, was satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

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

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) and it was submitted that said notice, ld. AO has not clearly mentioned the limb, on the basis of which, penalty was proposed to be imposed. Ld. AO has simply issued a pre-printed notice without striking off the unnecessary portions of the notice. In support, reliance was placed

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

25,040/-. The Assessing officer simultaneously initiated the penalty proceeding in relation to undisclosed income by way of issuance of notice dated 16.03.2016 U/s 271AAB of the Act. 3 M/s Rambhajo’s vs. ACIT 3. Subsequently, during penalty proceeding, a fresh show cause notice dated 17.08.2016 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted that the additional income

SHRI MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 5 is clearly attracted in the instant case and the same should be sustained. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The first issue that arise for consideration is whether explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) is attracted in the instant case which has been