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

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

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)

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,01,50,594/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 4 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income

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

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

143(3)\nr.w.s 153A of the I.T. Act was not completed. Hence, the claim of the\nassessee that there is no difference in the return filed u/s 139(1) and 153A of\nthe Act has no substance as return filed u/s 139(1) was not assessed u/s\n143(3) of the I.T. Act.\nFurther, the claim of the assessee that

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

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

143(3) r.w.s.153A dated 24.12.2018.\" meaning thereby that the appellant adhered to the surrender of income which was made during survey.\nFurther the main contention in the penalty order is that had the survey action not taken place the income surrendered in survey and resultantly offered in the return filed u/s 139(1) would have remained undetected and thus

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)

2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which limb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s 274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income or furnishing

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

143(3)\ndt.07.10.2016wherever any addition/ disallowance is made, there is no reference of initiation\nof penalty proceedings though in para 9 of the order penalty proceeding is stated to be\ninitiated against certain additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Howeverat\nthe end of the assessment order it is stated that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have been

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.

143(3) of the I.T. Act at Rs.1,14,75,790/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charged interest u/s 234B, 234C, 234D & Withdrawal of excess refund u/s 244A. ITNS 150 is part of this order. Notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)© of the Act is issued separately on the issue discussed in para 3.1 of this order