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)

58,62,560/-. It is noted that in the assessment order, AO at Para 11, Pg 32 of the order has recorded that RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed its taxable income with respect to the above additions made to the total income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 271(1)(c).\n4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred\nin confirming the penalty of Rs.5,18,55,995/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 without considering that the assessee was eligible for\ndepreciation otherwise and the deduction was claimed due to mistake of\ncounsel which

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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

58,800/-. Since, this return was filed after the\nlimits prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act, hence it was held to be an invalid return.\nKindly refer para 1 of the impugned penalty order and also held so by the AO in\nthe subjected Assessment Order dated 23.08.2018 u/s 143/147 at Pg.1 Pr.1,\nstating that “the return was filed

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

58,800/-. Since, this return was filed after the\nlimits prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act, hence it was held to be an invalid return.\nKindly refer para 1 of the impugned penalty order and also held so by the AO in\nthe subjected Assessment Order dated 23.08.2018 u/s 143/147 at Pg.1 Pr.1,\nstating that “the return was filed

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

58,800/-. Since, this return was filed after the\nlimits prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act, hence it was held to be an invalid return.\nKindly refer para 1 of the impugned penalty order and also held so by the AO in\nthe subjected Assessment Order dated 23.08.2018 u/s 143/147 at Pg.1 Pr.1,\nstating that “the return was filed

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

58,800/-. Since, this return was filed after the\nlimits prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act, hence it was held to be an invalid return.\nKindly refer para 1 of the impugned penalty order and also held so by the AO in\nthe subjected Assessment Order dated 23.08.2018 u/s 143/147 at Pg.1 Pr.1,\nstating that “the return was filed

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

58,800/-. Since, this return was filed after the\nlimits prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act, hence it was held to be an invalid return.\nKindly refer para 1 of the impugned penalty order and also held so by the AO in\nthe subjected Assessment Order dated 23.08.2018 u/s 143/147 at Pg.1 Pr.1,\nstating that “the return was filed

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c). 15 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR In view of the above, penalty levied by the ld. AO deserves to be deleted as the same has been levied in a mechanical manner and without application of mind.’’ 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order

RAM KISHORE MEENA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD, MORAK, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act be upheld.” ACIT vs. Mangalam Cement Limited. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The AO has levied penalty of Rs. 1,26,58,910/- u/s

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

58 [under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of section 115WE or] under sub- section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 59 [or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142], or …………. ………… he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty

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.

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessment was made at Rs.5.38,800/- which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount of Rs. 58,525/- as per provision of section

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.

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessment was made at Rs.5.38,800/- which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount of Rs. 58,525/- as per provision of section

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.

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessment was made at Rs.5.38,800/- which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount of Rs. 58,525/- as per provision of section

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act in the case of assessee. Accordingly, expenditure of Rs. 52,58,106/- was disallowed by the AO and penalty proceedings u/s 271

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

u/s 271(1) (c) without considering the fresh evidence, its order was invalid and the matter was remanded. In the light of this proposition of law it is seen that the penalty order deals with the evidence and submissions of the appellant most superficially and without application of mind, in these words: "10. I have considered the reply

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are different than those applied for making or confirming the addition. It is, therefore, necessary to re-appreciate and reconsider the matter so as to find out as to whether the addition or disallowance made in the quantum proceedings actually represents the concealment on the part of the assessee as envisaged in section