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

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

penalty of Rs. 41,16,578/- u/s 271(1)(c)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the addition was made by the Learned\nAssessing officer by adopting the stamp duty of Sub-registrar where\nthe assessee has not concealed any income.\n3. The appellant begs permission to add amend or alter any of the\ngrounds of appeal before

SHRI RAM SHARAN GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 2(22)(e) which assessee was not well aware even with his sufficient cogency. It is submitted that assessee has made all the necessary disclosure and so rigours of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) cannot be invoked in case of assessee only because of deeming provisions. It is settled law that any addition made to the income of assessee

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

penalty of\nRs.203275/-U/s 271(1)(C).\n3. That order of learned Assessing Authority is based on assumptions and presumptions\nand against real facts of the case.\n4. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing.\n5. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before

SHRI SHYAM SUNDER DUSEJA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(3), JAIPUR, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied is hereby directed to be deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on difference between actual sale consideration and DLC value of immovable property sold by the assessee. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that during the financial year relevant to impugned assessment year, the assessee had sold a shop for a consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- value of which was 2

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

271/- was created. Against this intimation, assessee filed an application u/s 154 and in this proceedings, assessee filed a detailed reply dated 28.08.2013 explaining how its income is exempt from tax under the Act. 3 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur 4. It was submitted that the AO, however, rejected the claim

SUBHASH CHAND PATNI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

section 50C, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is unsustainable. (copy of all judgements are enclosed) GROUND NO.2: ERRONEOUS ACTION OF LEVY OF PENATLY U/S. 271(1)(C) WITHOUT ASCERTAINING CORRECT FACTS OF CASE 9 Subhash Chand Patni vs. ITO, Jaipur 1. That facts of the case are that appellant has got registered a sale deed of sale of agricultural land

SMT. KRISHNA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

u/s 271(1)(c) be directed to be deleted. 2. On merit it is submitted that the quantum appeal is also fixed for hearing along with the penalty appeal before the Hon’ble Bench where assessee has explained the source of investment in agricultural land. In case the Hon’ble ITAT do not accept the submission of assessee on legality

SMT. KRISHNA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI,, ALWAR

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

u/s 271(1)(c) be directed to be deleted. 2. On merit it is submitted that the quantum appeal is also fixed for hearing along with the penalty appeal before the Hon’ble Bench where assessee has explained the source of investment in agricultural land. In case the Hon’ble ITAT do not accept the submission of assessee on legality

JHABAR SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

u/s 271(1){c} of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, penalty so imposed deserved to be quashed. 5) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the date of hearing.” 2. Only effective ground of this appeal is against confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 3. Briefly stated the facts

SHRI AVNISH BANSAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied in both the cases is hereby directed to be deleted

u/s 50C at Rs 1,72,43,350 and investment in house property amounting to Rs 41,60,100 which was claimed under section 54 of the Act. The computation so filed therefore clearly discloses the nature and specifics of the property so sold and subsequent purchase of house property by the assessee. There is thus proper disclosure

PRAKASH RAJ BHANSALI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. Ground No. 1 Is Regarding Validity Of Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Ground Of Defective Initiation Of Proceedings

Section 2(14) of Income-tax Act and therefore, it was treated as capital asset by the AO. In response to the notice issued U/s 142(1) the 4 Shri Prakash Raj Bhansali vs. ITO assessee offered the long term capital gain to tax. Thus, it is manifest from the record that before the case of the assessee was taken

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,76,51,300/- by applying the provision of Section 50C of the income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The ld ITO erred in levying interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The ld. ITO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHARDA DEVI,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalsharda Devi, 421, Lohia Padi, Alwar- 301001. Pan No.:Adkpd7161J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(4), Alwar. ..... Respondent

2,97,329/- imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and deserves to be deleted since penalty was imposed on the basis of addition made under deeming provision of section 50C

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c) against the assessee for concealing the particulars of income\nand for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n4.2 The assessee being aggrieved with the order of AO preferred an\nappeal before Id. CIT (A) who partly allowed the appeal vide its order dated\n17.08.2023 by accepting the Ground No. 2. The relevant para (Para

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI SAIWAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-3, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat

U/s 271(1)(c) of the 4 ITA 1259/JP/2018 Smt. Krishna Devi Saiwal Vs ITO Act with respect to addition made under deeming provisions of Section 50C of the Act. Hence, I direct the A.O. to delete the penalty. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th June

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 to section 263 is attracted. Hence, the order passed by AO can’t be branded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. It may be noted that Sh. Ramawtar Agarwal, father of assessee purchased 5 bigha of agricultural land on 10.04.1975 for Rs.20,000/- and as per the court decree the sale deed was executed

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

BABU LAL AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961. In view of above. I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The quantum of penalty levy in the present case is computed as under-:- S.N. Particulars Amount (In Rs.)1. 1. Addition/ concealment of capital