ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed in as much as a comparison has to be made between the return of income filed u/s 153 A viz-a-viz the assessed income.However, the facts ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 19 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. of the present case are on much stronger footing because the assessee admitted additional

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

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

u/s 153A), can by itself be treated as concealment warranting addition\nor penalty. The issue which is there in the appeal was already decided by the\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s SAS\nPharmaceuticals [2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi) wherein the High Court\nobserved that Section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed in as much as a comparison has to be made between the return of income filed u/s 153 A viz-a-viz the assessed income.However, the facts\nof the present case are on much stronger footing because the assessee admitted additional

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

additions\nmade to the total income of the assessee from para no. (3) to (10) of the order\nabove on account of claim of expenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period\nexpenditure, contribution to CDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 801A &\ndisallowance u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

additions made to the total income of the assessee from para no. (3) to (10) of the order above on account of claim of expenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period expenditure, contribution to CDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 80IA & disallowance u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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.

271(1)(c) was issued for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, where as penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1. At the time of passing the assessment order on 18.04.2017, the AD after discussing the addition made by him, stated Penalty proceedings u/s