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

u/s\n274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment\nof income

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

271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty imposable (300% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 1,36,665/- Penalty levied (100% of the tax sought to evaded Rs. 45,555/- In view of the above, a penalty of Rs. 45,555/- is hereby levied u/s

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

271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty imposable (300% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 1,36,665/- Penalty levied (100% of the tax sought to evaded Rs. 45,555/- In view of the above, a penalty of Rs. 45,555/- is hereby levied u/s

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of I.T.\nAct, 1961\nTax on concealed income\nMinimum penalty @ 100%\nMaximum penalty

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty imposable (300% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 1,36,665/- Penalty levied (100% of the tax sought to evaded Rs. 45,555/- In view of the above, a penalty of Rs. 45,555/- is hereby levied u/s

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) invoking Expl. 5A. Accordingly, Show cause notice u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act were

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)—Justification of imposition of penalty-\nDeletion of Held, tribunal deleted penalty imposed u/s 271

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of I.T.\nAct, 1961\nTax on concealed income\nMinimum penalty @ 100%\nMaximum penalty

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Appellant-assessee challenged imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Held, section 271

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Appellant-assessee challenged imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Held, section 271

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of concealment of income and accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated”. Notice u/s 274 3 Narayana Heights & Tower. Further in the penalty

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 proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated simultaneously – Ultimately AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.10

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The levy of penalty of Rs.26,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) is, accordingly

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

u/s 271 should be specific on imposing of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 i.e. concealed

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act. It may be noted that both u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act. It may be noted that both u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act. It may be noted that both u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s