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

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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

u/s 271E of the Act, hence\nthe penalty imposed is not maintainable, bad in law and deserves to be\nannulled on this count also. On this count we note that there was no\nsatisfaction for levy of penalty in the assessment and even the Id. AO\nconsidered that income and opted to levy the penalty on the other sections

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

u/s 271E of the Act, hence\nthe penalty imposed is not maintainable, bad in law and deserves to be\nannulled on this count also. On this count we note that there was no\nsatisfaction for levy of penalty in the assessment and even the Id. AO\nconsidered that income and opted to levy the penalty on the other sections

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

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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)

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause notice 274 r.w.s 271

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

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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

u/s 271E of the Act, hence\nthe penalty imposed is not maintainable, bad in law and deserves to be\nannulled on this count also. On this count we note that there was no\nsatisfaction for levy of penalty in the assessment and even the Id. AO\nconsidered that income and opted to levy the penalty on the other sections

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

u/s 271E of the Act, hence\nthe penalty imposed is not maintainable, bad in law and deserves to be\nannulled on this count also. On this count we note that there was no\nsatisfaction for levy of penalty in the assessment and even the Id. AO\nconsidered that income and opted to levy the penalty on the other sections

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice u/s 271\n(1) (c) for imposing of penalty

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated.\"\n3.3 As per section 271(1)(c), the assessing officer is empowered

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated.\"\n3.3 As per section 271(1)(c), the assessing officer is empowered

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)

section 271(1)(c) and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income for an amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

section 271(1)(c) and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income for an amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

section 271(1)(c) and\ntherefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income for an\namount

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

Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for deletion of penalty amounting to Rs.2,60,090/-imposed by the AO u/s 271(1