MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 271(1)(c) in respect of said addition was to be confirmed which was also confirmed by the jurisdictional Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Appeal No. Grass Field Farms & Resorts (P.) 12 Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 79 taxmann.com 426 [Raj. HC]]. It was held that levy of penalty u/s 271

SHRI OM PRAKASH MODI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 196/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Modi, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar Central Circle-2, (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acfpm 8683 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 01/01/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271Aab Imposed At Rs. 3,75,00,000/-, Arbitrarily, Thus The Order So Passed Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Has Duly Disclosed In The Statements U/S 132(4) & The Mode & Manner Was Also Explained, Further Due Tax Was Also Paid, Therefore, The Penalty Of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- So Levied Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed On Additional Income Of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- Duly Offered

112 (Bom.) (HC) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: Terminology of s. 158BFA(2) makes it clear that there is a discretion in the AO to direct payment of penalty. It is only if the authority decides to impose penalty then it would not be less than the tax leviable but shall 36 ITA 196/JP/2018_

SH. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) was to be quashed. Omprakash T. Mehta Vs. ITO (2020) 193 DTR 25 (Bom.) (HC) Two limbs i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. AO has to indicate in the statutory notice for which

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Section 263 of the Act does not give any power to PCIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to be initiated or not. Where the Commissioner finds while examining the records of an assessment order that AO has not initiated penalty proceedings, he cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,005, VILLAGE BEEDMANDI, NAYAGAON, RAMGANJMANDI, KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section/ clause. 2. It may be noted that u/s 263, where the Commissioner finds while examining the records of an assessment order that AO has not initiated penalty proceedings, he cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part of assessment proceedings. 6 Shri Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya Therefore, the Commissioner cannot pass an order u/s 263 pertaining

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

112/- is quashed.\"\n10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nITA No. 1180/JPR/2024 :\n“1. The impugned order u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 24.02.2022 as well\nas the notices and proceedings by the ld. AO are illegal, bad in law, barred by\nlimitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or\ncompetent