ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

271(1)63, the initial burden lies on the revenue to\nestablish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate\nparticulars of such income. The burden shifts to the assessee only if he fails to\noffer any explanation for the undisclosed income or offers an explanation which is\nfound to be false by the assessing authority. However

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)

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have been passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO is clearly barred by limitation. 6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of income on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance u/s

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have\nbeen passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO\nis clearly barred by limitation.\n\n6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of\nincome on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance u/s

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) levied upon the\nassessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the\nsame was on account of change of law and therefore, a matter of bona\nfide mistake.\n(6) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SIDHARTHA\nENTERPRISES\nHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271 read with section 274 of the IT Act without specifying the default prescribed under section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In compliance to the said penalty notice, the assessee submitted explanation but the same could not find favour with the AO and he holding that the assessee is liable for imposition of penalty under section 271AAB

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under:- (a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. (b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. (c) Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. (d) Existence of conditions stipulated

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

Section 271(1)© of the Act are applicable in this case and it is a fit case to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. I, therefore, proceed to levy of penalty of Rs.16,64,000/- which is calculated as under:- Computation of Penalty A. Total assessed income as per order u/s 143(3) Rs.5

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

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

271 (1) (c). In the case(s) Radha Mohan Maheshwari Vs.\nDCIT (ITA No. 773/JP/2013) Mohd. Sharif Khan Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 441/JP/2014)\nShankar Lal Khandelwal Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 878/JP/2013)Murari Lal Mittal (ITA\nNo. 334/JP/2015 order dated 9-11-2016 and Mridula Agarwal (ITA No.\n176/JP/2016) the Hon'ble Bench upheld the same view.\n(v)\nThe

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

63,771/-. 3.2 In view of provision of section 44AB the assessee was required to get audited its accounts before the specified date and furnish by that date the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly singed and verified by such accounts and setting fourth such particulars as may be prescribed. As per explanation (ii) of section 44AB

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of Act which has been issued in plain printed form without ticking / marking the applicable clause as well as without striking-off the irrelevant limb which reveals that the penalty was initiated as well as levied for both the charges. It is apparent that if AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, was satisfied that

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

63,700/- in which additional income from long term capital gain at Rs.6,19,338/- which was not included in the original return has been disclosed. Accordingly, the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29.12.2017 and income was assessed at Rs.6.18,74,055/- by making the additions and also penalty proceedings u/s