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

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

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

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice dated 21.12.2018 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section 271AAB(1)(a)/271AAB(1)(c) should not be initiated against the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of Rs. 33,00,000/- vide penalty order

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

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

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

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1)(c). What section 68, 69, 69A, 698 and 69C deem for the purpose of assessment was injected for the purpose of penalty by operation of a deeming proviso A proviso was added to the new Explanation. Il concerns cases where the assessee offers an explanation which he is not able: to substantiate. Consequentially the provisions are intended

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

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

SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

68,700/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 10.00 lacs. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the of the Act at the returned income. However, the AO held that income of Rs. 10.00 lacs is assessable u/s 69 of the Act and therefore, the same is taxable

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

68 of the Act. The Tribunal had applied the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in T.V. Sundariam Iyengar &Sons's case (supra) where the amount which was initially of capital nature but had changed its character to be of revenue nature, it was treated to be taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1

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