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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

revision, for the purposes of initiating a new and distinct penalty proceedings of onerous nature. Failure of AO to initiate or impose penalty cannot be a factor capable of vitiating the assessment order in any respect. 6. Recording of satisfaction by the AO (not by the CIT)-condition precedent: A bare perusal of sec. 271(1)(c)/271AAB (1A) requires

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

revised adjustment of Rs. 4,68,40,099/- in respect of interest free loans of AEs which are as per direction of Hon’ble ITAT for the purposes of imposition of penalty under clause © of this section, is hereby deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Because the case

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

revised adjustment of Rs. 4,68,40,099/- in respect of interest free loans of AEs which are as per direction of Hon’ble ITAT for the purposes of imposition of penalty under clause © of this section, is hereby deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Because the case

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

revision under explanation (2) clause (a), clause (b) of section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore holding that there has been short levy of penalty of Rs. 2,99,56,404/- the penalty order dated 20/8/2015 is set aside on this issue with a direction to the assessing officer to pass the same in the case of the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

revision under explanation (2) clause (a), clause (b) of section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore holding that there has been short levy of penalty of Rs. 2,99,56,404/- the penalty order dated 20/8/2015 is set aside on this issue with a direction to the assessing officer to pass the same in the case of the assessee

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)

263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed, (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed or six months from

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)

263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed, (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed or six months from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble High Court Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of Hon’Ble Itat & The Matter Is Subjudice?”

Revision order u/s 263 itself is quashed and order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 (whereby penalty was initiated) has been modified by ld.AO to give effect to the order of Hon'ble ITAT, penalty order passed u/s 271