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

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

section 50C is a deeming provision and it has to be strictly construed and cannot be extended for the purpose of levy of penalty. It was further submitted that even penalty provisions needs to be construed strictly and only where there is any positive evidence of concealment of income, the penalty can be levied. It was submitted that

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

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

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

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act has again specified the charges as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, merely because show cause notice contains both charges without striking off the irrelevant part will not vitiate the penalty proceedings. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material

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

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

u/s 148. The action of the Ld. AO was illegal and therefore\ndeserves to be quashed or set aside.\n2\nITA NO. 1398/JP/2024\nSHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR\n2. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law while applying sec. 50C in case of\nsale of Agriculture land. The action of the Ld. A.O. was illegal

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

section 50C and thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground 3 ITA 1259/JP/2018 Smt. Krishna Devi Saiwal Vs ITO of concealment. Thus, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the difference between the stated sale consideration and the DLC rate adopted by the Collector, Stamps. 5

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C is not applicable as held by various decisions including ITAT, Jaipur Bench. Further as held by various Courts that if investment is made within the time available for filing the return u/s 139(4) or the investment is made in the name of wife or dependent family members, same is eligible for deduction u/s 54F. The AO considering

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

U/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. Hence, the same is hereby cancelled. (v) In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 5. Against the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 4 ACIT Vs. Golcha Minerals P.Ltd 6. Rival contentions have been hard and record perused. In this case penalty has been imposed

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

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

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 of IT Act. 3. That the appellant prays to add or alter any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

50C ignoring the fact that transfer was made vide sale agreement on dated 22.01.2006. 12. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law also ld. Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in modifying the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act to the order passed u/s 147/144 of the Act without giving any opportunity for same

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

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

penalty of Rs. 41,16,578/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the addition was made by the Learned Assessing officer by adopting the stamp duty of Sub-registrar where the assessee has not concealed any income. 3. The appellant begs permission to add amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal before