RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable if\nthe other conditions of this provision are met. THUS THE STATE OF MIND OF\nTHE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE ACT WAS INTENTIONAL OR NOT IS NOT\nRELEVANT AND WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE ACTUAL CONDUCT/ACTION\nONLY.\nThe above is in the context of section 271(1

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

d) of the Act of 1961 but\nimmediately on knowing about its non-applicability a revised return was filed\ndisclosing accurate income. Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 it is\nrequired to be seen as to whether the assessee has concealed the income or the\ndetails supplied by him in return were found incorrect, erroneous

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

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

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

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

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 if the above submissions are considered while disposing of the appeals for the year under consideration.’’ To support

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 271 (1)(b) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S No Particulars Page No. 01. Copy of Acknowledgement of Reply submitted Before

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 271 (1)(b) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S No Particulars Page No. 01. Copy of Acknowledgement of Reply submitted Before

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 271 (1)(b) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S No Particulars Page No. 01. Copy of Acknowledgement of Reply submitted Before

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)

271(1)(c) dt.07.10.2016, it is stated that it appears that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Thus penalty notice is issued without specifying whether the charge is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In subsequent notice dt. 14.03.2019 also, the assessee was not made aware

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.

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. (e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. 22 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR (f) Ever if there

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 AAC (1) and subsequent levy of penalty is ab initio bad in law and facts. On this aspect the Learned Assessing Officer has opined that the assessee having paid tax under section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 surmounts to the assessee having consented for addition under the provisions. This view of the Learned Assessing Officer is untenable

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act is deleted. 13 Amit Jain vs. Circle (Intl. Tax), Jaipur 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 272A(1)(d

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed unjustified since there was no deliberate attempt to conceal income. The ruling reaffirmed that agricultural income remains tax- free, and its deposit into a bank account does not change its nature or make it liable for taxation. 2. Vinaya Sharma vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur, November 2024) 2.1. Facts of the Case

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

section 271(1)(c) cannot be automatically imposed. Respectfully following that view of the matter and considering the fact of the matter that the assessee has filed the revised return and that was accepted there is no case to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

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

section 271(1)©of the Act are allowed. ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member PER :NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I have gone through the draft order communicated by my Learned Brother-Accountant Member. I have reasons to add in dealing with the issue involved, and as such, I proceed to append my reasons, observations

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

section 271(1)©of the Act are allowed. ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member PER :NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I have gone through the draft order communicated by my Learned Brother-Accountant Member. I have reasons to add in dealing with the issue involved, and as such, I proceed to append my reasons, observations

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMIED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section u/s 271(1)© of 14 KOTHARI JEWELS PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR the Act accordingly and thus the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee stands allowed. 3.1 Since I have allowed Ground No. 1 and deleted the penalty imposed upon the assessee, therefore, now there is no need to dispose off Ground