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)

37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore Trib.) [14-08-2013] 7. We have considered the rival submissions. As far as imposition of penalty on the income offered in the return of income by the Assessee is concerned, we are of the view that there cannot be any penalty on income which is declared in a return of income, on the facts

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

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)

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 80IA & disallowance u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have been initiated separately.” From the above it is clear that AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation

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

10) of the order\nabove on account of claim of expenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period\nexpenditure, contribution to CDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 801A &\ndisallowance u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have been\ninitiated separately.\"\n\nFrom the above it is clear that AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation

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

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

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

37,000/- u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act by giving the detailed facts of the case as under:- 2.1…..The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 18.12.2017. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur. The Ld. CIT(A) vide appeal order dated

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)

37,98,650/- 2 1164/JP/2025 2015-16 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 1,40,80,050/- 3 1165/JP/2025 2016-17 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 1,26,03,513/- 4 1166/JP/2025

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)

37,98,650/- 2 1164/JP/2025 2015-16 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 1,40,80,050/- 3 1165/JP/2025 2016-17 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 1,26,03,513/- 4 1166/JP/2025

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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

37,98,650/-\n2\n1164/JP/2025\n2015-16\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,40,80,050/-\n3\n1165/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,26,03,513/-\n4\n1166/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy

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

37,98,650/-\n2\n1164/JP/2025\n2015-16\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,40,80,050/-\n3\n1165/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,26,03,513/-\n4\n1166/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c) which provides for separate charge of “concealment of particulars of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”, there is a singular charge under section 271AAB i.e, of the existence of undisclosed income for the specified previous year which is found during the course of search in the case of the assessee. We entirely agree with

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

37,98,650/-\n2\n1164/JP/2025\n2015-16\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,40,80,050/-\n3\n1165/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,26,03,513/-\n4\n1166/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy

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

37,98,650/-\n2\n1164/JP/2025\n2015-16\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,40,80,050/-\n3\n1165/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,26,03,513/-\n4\n1166/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy

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

37,98,650/-\n2\n1164/JP/2025\n2015-16\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,40,80,050/-\n3\n1165/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,26,03,513/-\n4\n1166/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy

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

37,98,650/-\n2\n1164/JP/2025\n2015-16\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,40,80,050/-\n3\n1165/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.1,26,03,513/-\n4\n1166/JP/2025\n2016-17\n19.06.2025\nLevy