SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties were

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) – contents of the notice – requirements of. Assessee is a trust and running a school – income of assessee is exempt

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

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

271(1)(c), is the basis of such statements and whether there are any tangible material by way of any entry in books of accounts, documents or transactions which have been found during the course of search and which support and corroborates such statements. 41. In the assessee’s statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 19.12.2014, in question

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case notice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads as under: “Penalty Notice Under Section 274, Read with Section 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.

exemption, and the transaction had been disclosed in the retum. There was no concealment of income and penalty u/s 271

SHRI HARISH KUMAR VASWANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c) and finding given in the penalty order, penalty is not levible. In support, reliance was placed on various decisions including decision in case of CIT vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 (SC), CIT vs. M/s Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Ors. 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) and decision of the Third Member of the Tribunal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance tax on the taxpayer's own estimate, etc., are required to be completed within two years from the date of completion of the proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance tax on the taxpayer's own estimate, etc., are required to be completed within two years from the date of completion of the proceedings

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c). For both the propositions the assessee had relied upon a number of Judicial Authorities, which for sake of brevity are not being extracted here in this order. It is therefore, pertinent to first direct ourselves to the correctness of these propositions. 4.2.1 It is argument of the assessee that the decision of liberty India (Supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the income surrendered by the assessee in the course of search and seizure action was already disclosed in the return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act, though the same was claimed as exempt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the income surrendered by the assessee in the course of search and seizure action was already disclosed in the return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act, though the same was claimed as exempt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI AJAY AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the income surrendered by the assessee in the course of search and seizure action was already disclosed in the return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act, though the same was claimed as exempt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the income surrendered by the assessee in the course of search and seizure action was already disclosed in the return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act, though the same was claimed as exempt

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the income surrendered by the assessee in the course of search and seizure action was already disclosed in the return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act, though the same was claimed as exempt

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the income surrendered by the assessee in the course of search and seizure action was already disclosed in the return of income filed U/s 139(1) of the Act, though the same was claimed as exempt

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: -

exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the IT Act, 5,95,91,797 1961/bogus LTCG Disallowance of brought forward long term Rs. 3,18,558/- capital loss against the long term capital gain In the income tax return u/s 153A of the Act, the appellant had declared additional income from long term capital gain of 7 Sh. Bittal Das Parwal

SHRI PREM KUMAR SANGHI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty cannot be sustained. With regard to merit of penalty so imposed with respect to addition of Rs. 3,75,000/-, it was argued that entire income from housing project was exempt

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside." The situation in the present case is still better as no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its Return. 15 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR 12. The Tribunal, as well as, the Commissioner of Income