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

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: -

271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 should not be imposed for above referred concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate 5 Sh. Bittal Das Parwal vs. ACIT particulars of income. In response, the AR of assessee filed his written submission on 10.02.2020. 3.3 The ld. AO noted that written submission of the assessee's AR requesting to delete

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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)(c

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

271(1)(c) read with section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on their grounds, firstly on Unsecured loans

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

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

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

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

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

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. The grounds of appeal taken are as under:- ITA. No. 922/JP/2018 for AY 2009-10 “(1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal

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