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

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 clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide

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 clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide

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 clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

rectification u/s 154 of the I T Act before the AO on 21.11.2011 to get the mistake rectified by reducing the income wrongly declared to the extent of 7,18,122/- (Rs.7,72,570/- less Rs.54,448/-) but still remains pending till date to the best of our knowledge. SURESH MAL LODHA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 5.5 Once

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) it is held as under:- 11 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. "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 Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) it is held as under:- 11 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. "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 Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) it is held as under:- 11 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. "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 Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) it is held as under:- 11 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. "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 Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

rectification or modification depending on the outcome of the appeal against the orders passed in the relevant assessment proceedings or the other proceedings in the course of which the penalty proceedings are required to be initiated. 25. We have also noticed that sections 271 and 273 were the two original penalty provisions, which require the penalty proceedings to be initiated

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

271(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) also\nnowhere stated that these notices has been served upon the assessee.\n5.Therefore in view of the above submissions the penalty so initiated impose may kindly be\ndeleted in full and oblige.\"\n16. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

271(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) also\nnowhere stated that these notices has been served upon the assessee.\n5.Therefore in view of the above submissions the penalty so initiated impose may kindly be\ndeleted in full and oblige.\"\n16. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders