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

3). Both appeal were allowed by the than Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur.\nFinally after appeal effect the assessed income reduced to Rs.1,05,,94,050/- i.e.\nreturn of income filed u/s 153A is accepted.\nThe A.O. thereafter took penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which were\ninitiated vide said notice dated 28-12-2016. The assessee filed its submissions

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

3). Both appeal were allowed by the than Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur.\nFinally after appeal effect the assessed income reduced to Rs.1,05,,94,050/- i.e.\nreturn of income filed u/s 153A is accepted.\nThe A.O. thereafter took penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which were\ninitiated vide said notice dated 28-12-2016. The assessee filed its submissions

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

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

10,463/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?\"\n3.3 In ITA No. 197/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-\n\"1. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,01,50,594/- u/s 271

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

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

10,463/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of\nthe I.T. Act?\"\n3.3 In ITA No. 197/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following\ngrounds of appeal:-\n\"1. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is\njustified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,01,50,594/- u/s 271

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)

10,463/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?" 3.3 In ITA No. 197/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,01,50,594/- u/s 271

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)

3) to (10) of the order above on account of claim of expenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period expenditure, contribution to CDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 80-IA and disallowance u/s 14A. Thereafter on the last page of the assessment order, it is mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act have been initiated

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

3) to (10) of the order above on account of claim of\nexpenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period expenditure, contribution to\nCDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 80-IA and disallowance u/s 14A.\n\nThereafter on the last page of the assessment order, it is mentioned that penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act have been

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.

3. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 588 (Delhi) the head note of which reads Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Conditions Precedent) Assessment year 2003-04 Assessing Officer while framing assessment order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RENU\nAGARWAL\nIN THE ITAT JAIPURITA No. 764/JP/2015(2017) 185 TTJ 0036\n(Jp) ((UO))\nLevy of Penalty u/s.271(1)(c)—Deletion—AO levied penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB by\nholding that assessee had made wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB-\nAO levied penalty

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)

3 of Section 271AAB of the Act talks about issuing the notice u/s 274 of the Act. So for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act the first step to be taken by Ld. A.O is to issue a valid notice u/s 274 of the Act. Sub-section (1) to Section 274 of the Act provides a procedure

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 has held as under :- “ It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee

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 has held as under :- “ It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10 has held as under :- “ It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

3. I have considerd the submissions of the A/R of the assessee and found not acceptable in view of the facts of the case and also in view of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 4. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated on concealment of particulars of income to the extent

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

3. I have considerd the submissions of the A/R of the assessee and found not acceptable in view of the facts of the case and also in view of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 4. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated on concealment of particulars of income to the extent

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

3. I have considerd the submissions of the A/R of the assessee and found not acceptable in view of the facts of the case and also in view of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 4. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated on concealment of particulars of income to the extent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

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

10. It was further held by the ld. CIT(A) that as per clause (b) of explanation 5A, the term used is “due date” and not “due date as specified u/s 139(1)” and therefore, even if assessee files return of income after date of search but within extended due date u/s 139(4) by including the unaccounted income admitted

SHRI GOPAL DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10 has held as under :- 19 Shri Gopal Das Sonkia, Jaipur. “ It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing