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

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

u/s 271AAB.\"\n(c) Issue of Mens rea:-\nThe appellant has also contended that in imposition of penalty mens-rea also\nplays a vital role before imposing the penalty, it is always compulsory to prove the\nmens-rea of the assessee as malafide for concealment of income or for\navoidance of any provision of law in force intentionally.\nThe above

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

u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\nAs is evident from the record that the assessee has revised the return\nof income to include the income surrendered and the same was assessed\nas such finally. The Id. AO levied the penalty of Rs.4,04,481/-on the\nadditional income of Rs.13,09,000/- disclosed by the assessee. Thus, the\nincome

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

276C and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) must be kept in mind. The concept of penalty has not been changed by the said decision. Penalty is imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default and not when there is merely a mistake or bona fide claim. Considering the above case laws it is clear that the explanation offered

J C ANTIQUES AND CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

276C and penalty under section 271(1)(c) had to be kept in mind and approach adopted to the trial of a criminal case need not be adopted while considering the levy of penalty. Even so, the concept of penalty has not undergone a change by virtue of the said judgment. It was categorically observed that penalty is imposed only

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)

u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 20.07.2023 submitted vide point no. 14 that deduction of interest was claimed on borrowing from IDFC first bank and PNB housing and the statement of the loan was submitted. Thus, the claim of the assessee was supported by the evidence. It was the decision of the assessee not to challenge the disallowance even

M/S OM PLANTATION,22, PATH NO.6, VIJAY BARI, TEEN DUKAN, SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), JAIPUR

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

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 have been initiated separately for concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5 Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), The CIT(A) for the reasons stated in his order has rejected the arguments that sufficient opportunities as given

SHRI ANURAG SHAH 2654, SHAH BHAWAN GHEE WALLON KA RASTA JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(1), JAIPUR, WARD-2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

u/s 10(38) of the Act. It is also seen that the similar income was offered by the appellant under the IDS-2016 for AY 2015-16. All this shows that only as a result of scrutiny assessment, on being questioning by the AO, the appellant came forward to offer the above income for taxation. The attention is invited