SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is confirmed

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is confirmed

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is confirmed

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is confirmed

VIRENDRA SINGH RATHORE ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad50/Jodh/2020 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Shri Virendra Singh Rathore Vs The Ito 130, Road No. 5, Subhash Nagar Ward 1(1) Distt. Udaipur (Raj) Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amfpr 9675 K

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was imposed. The AO in the penalty order specifically mentioned that the penalty

SANGRAM RAM,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

271(1)(c) kept in absence and on the same ground this penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of it Act. 7. That

SANGRAM RAM,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

271(1)(c) kept in absence and on the same ground this penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of it Act. 7. That

SHRINATH PRODUCTS,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Shrinath Products Vs. Ito. Ward 1(1), A.M.Mehta & Co, Udaipur, 6-B, Bapu Bazar, Rajasthan. Udaipur.-313001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfs9840Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-1,Udaipur Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax (Act), 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

u/s 20.05.2015 271(1)(b)/271(1)( c) 10 Penalty Memo 488/15.07.2015 Speed post dated u/s 19.08.2014 271(1)(b)/271

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

271(1)(c) was concerned and not date on which SCN was issued – Held, yes – Whether, since Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings in December, 2008 and six months from end of month in which action of imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30.06.2009, penalty order passed on 29.09.2009 was barred by limitation – Held, yes [para

SHRI CHUTRA RAM CHOUDHARY,BARMER vs. DC, CEN CIR-1,, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

KEWAL KANWAR BHANDARI ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Vide Impugned Order, Learned Cit(A) Has Upheld The Penalty Order, By Observing In The Manner As Under:-

271(1)(b) of the Act, thereby imposing on of penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. 4. As is available from the penalty order, penalty came to be imposed due to the reason that the assessee had failed to respond /comply with the notices u/s

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

penalty provision u/s 270A is in force to replace section 271(1)(C) of the IT Act. In this

MAHENDRA SINGH DHARAMPAL & CO.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemahendra Singh Dharampal & Acit Circle 2, Co Udaipur - 313001 15-18, Diamond Plazza, Hiran Magri Sect 5, Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aadfm 9764 A Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Revenue By Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Udaipur Dated 19.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 1,54,500/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ao.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) based on false and non-existent facts is not maintainable. 7. Therefore, the penalty

M/S. THE CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S.The Central Vs. The Acit, Circle Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara. Mahendra Gargieya & Rajasthan. Associates, Adv , No537-538,5Thfloor, Mahimatrinity, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302019, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat8126B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. 1.The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 18.05.2017 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same Kindly Be Quashed.

u/s 274 r/w 271(1)(c) of the Act, is quite vague and did not at all specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

CHAMPA LAL MEHTA ,SANCHORE vs. ITO WARD-2, JALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 67200/- and 67200/-\nrespectivelyon an addition made purely on acestimate basis.\n2. We have

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

penalty u/s 271-C for which it is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied on the disallowance made u/s 40A(3). I have gone through