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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

rectification of mistake being a mistake than an error and invoking of S.263 was not permissible.The remedial provisions u/s 147,154,263 operate into different fields and cannot be used interchangeably. CIT V Amitabh Bachchan(2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC)wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different

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)

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as under:- “Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of limitation. In this case, we find that the ld. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk) vide assessment

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)

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as under:- “Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of limitation. In this case, we find that the ld. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk) vide assessment

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n“Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has\nclearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT\nTonk) vide

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder.-\n“Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has\nclearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT\nTonk) vide

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder.-\n“Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has\nclearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT\nTonk) vide

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n“Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has\nclearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT\nTonk) vide

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n\"Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has\nclearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT\nTonk) vide