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

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

14,976/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income of Rs.3,94,67,426/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?\"\n3.2 In ITA No. 196/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-\n\"1. Whether

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

14-15) Where penalty notice issued against assessee was not adverted to any specific limb of section 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a penalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee

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

14-15)\nWhere penalty notice issued against assessee was not adverted to any specific limb of\nsection 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a\npenalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated\nagainst assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)\nwere satisfied or fulfilled so as to justify imposition of penalty-\nTribunal merely followed dictum of Supreme Court in several\ndecisions and thus penalty was rightly deleted by Tribunal—Penalty\nhas therefore been rightly deleted-Such a finding essentially based on\nfacts and circumstances peculiar to assessee, does not raise any\nsubstantial question of law-Court directed

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10 /20 / 30% since the assessee falls in Clauses (a) / (b) / (c) of section 271AAB of the Act. He should have further mentioned that as the assessees case falls under clause-c of section 271AAB of the Act, why she should not be visited by penalty @ 30% of the undisclosed income. Against this charge the assessee should have been given

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10 /20 / 30% since the assessee falls in Clauses (a) / (b) / (c) of section 271AAB of the Act. He should have further mentioned that as the assessees case falls under clause-c of section 271AAB of the Act, why she should not be visited by penalty @ 30% of the undisclosed income. Against this charge the assessee should have been given

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.

14,75,790/- For that reason, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.’’[Para 5 Page no-3 of the Penalty order of the AO] In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

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)

14 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of revision under section 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

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)

14 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of revision under section 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

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.

section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law." The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shevata Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 534/2008, at Para

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty\nproceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting\nto Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim of\nloss of Rs 70,000/- under the head house property income

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty\nproceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting\nto Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim of\nloss of Rs 70,000/- under the head house property income

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty\nproceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting\nto Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim of\nloss of Rs 70,000/- under the head house property income

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty\nproceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting\nto Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim of\nloss of Rs 70,000/- under the head house property income

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty\nproceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for\nfurnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting\nto Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim of\nloss of Rs 70,000/- under the head house property income

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10%, 20% or 30% depending on the fulfillment of certain conditions therein. It was submitted that all the conditions specified in Section 271AAB have been fulfilled in the instant case, therefore, the penalty U/s 271AAB being in the nature of mandatory penalty and there being no discretion with the Income tax authorities, the penalty so imposed

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

14,144\n24,39,82,885\n2.\nImposition of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of abovementioned acceptance\nand repayment of alleged unsecured loans\n2.1\nIn the assessment order, though the loans were added in the income of\nthe assessee, considering the same as same as “Unexplained Business receipts\nor unaccounted income" but still the Id. AO referred the matter