SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of interest as part of the cost of the assets while computing long term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act against the surrendered amount of Rs. 7,22,00,000/- by issuing show cause notice dated 28th March, 2016 and 12.08.2016. The assessee raised the objections against the initiation of penalty proceedings

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of certain expenses. The ld AO levied penalty of Rs. 57,33,335/- under clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) @ 10% of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- being income surrendered in search as recorded in statement u/s 132(4) and of Rs. 35,408/- under sub clause (b) of section 271AAB

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 27th June, 2018 has 3 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty 3 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. order dated 27st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of certain expenses, the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the notices dated 29th February, 2016 and 09.08.2016. The AO initially levied the penalty under section 271AAB vide order dated 30.08.2016 @ 10% of the undisclosed income total amounting

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of certain expenses, the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the notices dated 29th February, 2016 and 09.08.2016. The AO initially levied the penalty under section 271AAB vide order dated 30.08.2016 @ 10% of the undisclosed income total amounting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

274 read with section 271 of the Act and further no definite finding is given Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. by the AO in the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c). However, so far as the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the additions made to the total income of the assessee, this Tribunal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

274 read with section 271 of the Act and further no definite finding is given Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. by the AO in the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c). However, so far as the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the additions made to the total income of the assessee, this Tribunal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

274 read with section 271 of the Act and further no definite finding is given Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. by the AO in the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c). However, so far as the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the additions made to the total income of the assessee, this Tribunal

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses on account of personal element/unverifiable expenses. The A.O. simultaneously initiated penalty 3 SHRI PARAS MAL JAIN VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The A.O. thereafter took penalty proceedings initiated by him u/s 271AAB by issuing fresh show cause notice(s) to which assessee filed his explanation. The explanation filed by assessee

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

274 he simply has ticked in prescribed proforma concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income without deleting either limb of penalty even he has not put and in the notice itself 5 Narayana Heights & Tower. between two limbs. The amended provisions of Sub-section (1B) of Section 271 has been considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of expenses\non account of personal element/unverifiable expenses. The A.O. simultaneously\ninitiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The assessee filed his\nexplanation to the said notice which was rejected by A.O. and vide impugned\npenalty order dated levied a penalty of Rs.1,00,11,335/- on assessee firm. The\npresent appeal is against said penalty imposed

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

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

disallowance as to whether it is a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It is obviously an absurd proposition and goes against the unambiguous language of the provision. Thus, it is overt that after insertion of sub-section (1B) to section 271, invariably, the AO should be deemed to have Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT recorded proper satisfaction

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

disallowance as to whether it is a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It is obviously an absurd proposition and goes against the unambiguous language of the provision. Thus, it is overt that after insertion of sub-section (1B) to section 271, invariably, the AO should be deemed to have Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT recorded proper satisfaction

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)

disallowance u/s 14A. Thereafter on the last page of the assessment order, it is mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act have been initiated separately. It is worthwhile to mention that along with the assessment order, notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dt. 31.12.2025 (PB 17) is issued. The details of the relevant narration

M/S SILVER AND ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of Rs. 12,384/- on account of delay in deposition of ESI & PF. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB were initiated by issuance of notice on 23.12.2016. Subsequently, penalty was imposed u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act at the rate of 10% amounting to Rs. 2,65,05,090/- vide order dated 24.4.2017. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee

SHRI KAMAL SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

274 read with section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act specifying the exact clause of Sec. 271AAB under which penalty was to be levied.” 3. The assessee is an individual and partner in the firms M/s Sethia Real Estates and M/s Manglam Vardhman Developers LLP. The assessee is also Director in M/s Richwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. These firms and companies