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)

4 in sub section (1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect. Further, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated in the assessment order on the ground that the income was detected during the survey action and neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty order there is any finding regarding

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

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

4 in sub section\n(1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect.\nFurther, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated in the\nassessment order on the ground that the income was detected during the survey\naction and neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty order there is any\nfinding regarding

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

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

4 in sub section (1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect.\nFurther, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated in the assessment order on the ground that the income was detected during the survey action and neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty order there is any finding regarding

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

11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton &\nGinning Factory (supra)] wherein it is observed that concealment of income and\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different\nmeanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to\nonly one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 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)

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. 4. It is further submitted that in Para 11

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.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, if the decision of this Court in case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) is considered, the resultant effect would be that the notice in question issued under Section 271(1)(c) for levy of penalty and consequently the penalty imposed, both would be unsustainable and cannot stand

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties

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

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)

11. This now takes us to next contention of the ld AR regarding amount surrendered during the course of search not qualifying as an “undisclosed income” u/s 271AAB r/w explanation thereto and merely surrender made in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) is not sufficient for levy of penalty. It is a settled legal proposition that the penalty provisions needs

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

11. In the instant case, the notice initiating the penalty proceedings talks about initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of undisclosed income of the specified previous year. However, while passing the penalty proceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected in the penalty order that the assessee is liable for penalty U/s

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)

11,02,13,000 90,95,257 2018-19 59,00,000 3,22,15,053 2019-20 9,51,16,277 4,20,26,176 2020-21 8,33,67,454 6,52,43,524 2021-22 32,96,15,250 6,99,87,788 Total 66,06,14,144 24,39,82,885 2. Imposition of penalty u/s

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)

11,02,13,000 90,95,257 2018-19 59,00,000 3,22,15,053 2019-20 9,51,16,277 4,20,26,176 2020-21 8,33,67,454 6,52,43,524 2021-22 32,96,15,250 6,99,87,788 Total 66,06,14,144 24,39,82,885 2. Imposition of penalty u/s

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

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

4) was held invalid and thus, was a non-existing document, it was only a ROI\nfiled u/s 148, which alone could be considered for the purposes of penalty u/s\n271(1)(c). The AO, therefore seriously erred in ignoring the ROI filed u/s 148,\nmaking no claim of deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss

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

4) was held invalid and thus, was a non-existing document, it was only a ROI\nfiled u/s 148, which alone could be considered for the purposes of penalty u/s\n271(1)(c). The AO, therefore seriously erred in ignoring the ROI filed u/s 148,\nmaking no claim of deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss

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

4) was held invalid and thus, was a non-existing document, it was only a ROI\nfiled u/s 148, which alone could be considered for the purposes of penalty u/s\n271(1)(c). The AO, therefore seriously erred in ignoring the ROI filed u/s 148,\nmaking no claim of deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss

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

4) was held invalid and thus, was a non-existing document, it was only a ROI\nfiled u/s 148, which alone could be considered for the purposes of penalty u/s\n271(1)(c). The AO, therefore seriously erred in ignoring the ROI filed u/s 148,\nmaking no claim of deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss