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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to the extent of Rs. 1,58,23,140/-.” Thus even in the concluding part the AO was not sure about the charge and default of the assessee for which the penalty was levied under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to the extent of Rs. 1,58,23,140/-.” Thus even in the concluding part the AO was not sure about the charge and default of the assessee for which the penalty was levied under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to the extent of Rs. 1,58,23,140/-.” Thus even in the concluding part the AO was not sure about the charge and default of the assessee for which the penalty was levied under section

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

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

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