VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,40,099/- clearly comes under the ambit of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and penalty

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act clearly applicable. 5.6 Even no return was filed u/s 139. The total income returned in the return in response to Notice u/s 153A is Rs. 4,68

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 AAC (1) which reads as under: 271AAC: (1) The Assessing Officer or {the Joint Commissioner (Appeals or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act other than the provisions of section 271AAB, direct that, in a case where the income determined includes any income referred to in section 68

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

271(1)(c)\nof the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 404481 imposed by him is\nwrong and bad in law.\n2.\nThat without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in\nlaw in confirming penalty of Rs.4

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

271(l)(c) when: 'the initiation of the penalty proceeding was for concealment of the particulars of income. But the Tribunal finally held that the assessee would be deemed to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.' 19. Thus it is evident that when the AO is satisfied at the stage

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. 9 DCIT Vs Rajendra Agarwal Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

68 has held that where the assessment of the\nassessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature….” xiii. Attention is drawn towards the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Baroda Tin Works [1996] 221 ITR 661 (Gujarat) wherein it was held as under: “Additions have been made under the provisions of section 68/69A cannot

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

Section 271(1)(c), read with\nsection 68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1)(c).", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["271AAB", "250", "132", "139", "153A", "68", "274", "271", "158BFA", "69", "69B"], "issues": "Whether the penalty

ZAKI AHMED FAROOQUI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

271(1)(c). He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. During the assessment proceedings, the AO inter alia made additions on account of cash credit under section 68

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

68-71 of paper book) Copy of Balance Sheet of Assessment Year 2013-14. (page no. 72 of paper book) Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Kota. Copy of Capital Account of Assessment Year 2013-14 (page no. 73 of paper book Copy of Assessment Order dated 22.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota