Search: penalty u/s 271

327 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(37)clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 271A155 Addition to Income70 Section 143(3)65 Section 271(1)(c)50 Penalty42 Section 153A36 Section 6829 Search & Seizure29 Section 14727 Section 271E27 Section 14826 Natural Justice18

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

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

37 of Id. CIT(A)\n“11. In the instant case, the notice initiating the penalty proceedings talks\nabout initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of\nundisclosed income of the specified previous year. However, while passing the\npenalty proceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected\nin the penalty order that

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

ITA 1453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

37 of Id. CIT(A)\n\"11. In the instant case, the notice initiating the penalty proceedings talks\nabout initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of\nundisclosed income of the specified previous year. However, while passing the\npenalty proceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected\nin the penalty order that

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

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

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

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

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

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

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

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

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

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

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

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

ITA 167/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

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

ITA 168/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271Section 271ASection 271aSection 274

10% 20% or 30% of the undisclosed income. In the absence of specifying the default and charge against the assessee for which the penalty was proposed to be levied the show cause notice issued by the AO and initiation of proceeding for levy of penalty U/s 271AAB are not valid. Hence, following the earlier order of this Tribunal

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

ITA 730/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. Merely because an addition has been made or confirmed in the assessment, does not, per se, lead to imposition of penalty u/s. 271(l)(c). Penalty proceedings are separately initiated on conclusion of the assessment, in which the assessee is given

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

ITA 731/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(4)Section 263Section 271A

37,44,551/-. During the course of proceedings u/s 263 the assessee furnished reply under letter dated 20.03.2018 copy of which is available on paper book page no. 53 to 61. The relevant portion is quoted below: - "5. Subsequently the Ld. Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by order dated 20.08.2015 @ 10

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(4)Section 263Section 271A

37,44,551/-. During the course of proceedings u/s 263 the assessee furnished reply under letter dated 20.03.2018 copy of which is available on paper book page no. 53 to 61. The relevant portion is quoted below: - "5. Subsequently the Learned Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by order dated 20.08.2015 @ 10

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1033/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case notice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads as under: “Penalty Notice Under Section 274, Read with Section 271

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 991/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 119Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271A

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

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

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

ITA 1498/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

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

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

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

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

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 271DSection 271E

Showing 1–20 of 327 · Page 1 of 17

...