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

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

11-2006 and cash was found from possession of assessee Assessee had drawn cash flow statement for entire period of six years in order to determine undisclosed income based on seized material for each of six assessment years - Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by invoking Explanation 5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect

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

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

Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable\nsince the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s.\n139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the\nTribunal in the case of CIT vs. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303\n(Ahmedabad - Trib

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)

11-2006 and cash was found from possession of assessee - Assessee had drawn cash flow statement for entire period of six years in order to determine undisclosed income based on seized material for each of six assessment years - Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by invoking Explanation 5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect

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)

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

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.

u/s 271(t)(c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. (Para 5 Page no-3 of the Penalty order of the AO) 2. The AO is not clear in his mind as to what default has been committed by the assessee, for which penalty needs to be levied. There was no clarity in mind of Assessing

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB of the IT Act and a penalty notice was issued accordingly. You are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself

SHRI MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

11. In this regard, it was submitted that the lower authorities have referred to section 132A(3) where it is mentioned that provisions of sub-section (4A) to (14) of section 132 applies to a requisition u/s 132A. However, they have ignored that sub- section (4) of section 132 which provides for recording of statement is not applicable to section

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.

11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO for all these

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.

11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO for all these

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.

11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO for all these

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

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

11(5) vs. Smt. J. Mythili. Finally, the AO has given his conclusive finding at para 7 of his penalty order wherein it has been stated that in view of the above cited and facts and legal position, the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income and accordingly

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

11. It transpires from the above discussion that, insofar as the issue before me is concerned, there are broadly two different stages having bearing on the imposition of penalty, namely, assessment and penalty. At the assessment stage, the AO has to record a satisfaction in the assessment order as to whether the additions/disallowances, on which penalty is likely

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

11. It transpires from the above discussion that, insofar as the issue before me is concerned, there are broadly two different stages having bearing on the imposition of penalty, namely, assessment and penalty. At the assessment stage, the AO has to record a satisfaction in the assessment order as to whether the additions/disallowances, on which penalty is likely

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271AAA. Thus, the facts and circumstances being quite identical, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Bench, Delhi deserves to be applied on the facts of present case as well. Since in our case also, the AO has initiated penalty only u/s 271(1)(c) in all the years and has not imposed the penalty u/s 271AAA, the impugned penalties

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5, 2016. 3. Order levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unlawful: - It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 271AAB. In the entire penalty order the Learned Assessing Officer has not ITA 421/JP/2018_ 14 Shri Ram Das Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT discussed under which clause (a), (b) or (c) of section