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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

38 years Director of\nM/s. Superfine Hotels Private Limited, 2nd Floor, J-13, Lal Kothi Yojna,\nNehru Sahakar Marg, Jaipur-302015 do hereby solemnly affirm & declare\noath as under :-\n1. That I am director of M/s Superfine Hotels Private Limited having\nPAN- AALCS0201P and the Learned CIT (A) has passed the order\nu/s 250 for penalty u/s 271

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

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)

10-20 years and impose penalty in 6 months after SCN, which is against legislative intent. The initiation means beginning, starting a legal process, or action or proceedings. The ld AO in assessment order has dealt the fact of receiving cash loans and repayment of cash loans by the assessee and the assessment orders were passed after approval u/s 153D

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)

10-20 years and impose penalty in 6 months after SCN, which is against legislative intent. The initiation means beginning, starting a legal process, or action or proceedings. The ld AO in assessment order has dealt the fact of receiving cash loans and repayment of cash loans by the assessee and the assessment orders were passed after approval u/s 153D

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

38-49), it was\nheld that:\n“Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the\nassessee u/s 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s\n139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the return

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

38-49), it was\nheld that:\n\"Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the\nassessee u/s 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s\n139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the return

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

38-49), it was\nheld that:\n\"Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the\nassessee u/s 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s\n139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the return

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

38-49), it was\nheld that:\n“Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the\nassessee u/s 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s\n139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the return

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

38-49), it was\nheld that:\n\"Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the\nassessee u/s 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s\n139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act, the return

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

10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on\nthe completion

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

10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on\nthe completion

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

10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on\nthe completion