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

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

u/s 271 (1) (c) is\nimposed on the concealed income as per working given below.\"\nAs against the above argument, the appellant has relied upon number of\njudgments of honorable courts and Tribunal in his submissions.\nSome of the judgments on the issue are as under:-\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals [2011] 11 taxmann.com\n207 (Delhi

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

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

12. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee has to prevail as it curried substantial weight. It is to be kept in mind that section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a penal provision and such a provision

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)\nwere satisfied or fulfilled so as to justify imposition of penalty-\nTribunal merely followed dictum of Supreme Court in several\ndecisions and thus penalty was rightly deleted by Tribunal—Penalty\nhas therefore been rightly deleted-Such a finding essentially based on\nfacts and circumstances peculiar to assessee, does not raise any\nsubstantial question of law-Court directed

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)

u/s 271AA(1A) of the Income Tax Act can be levied. While enacting Section 271AAB, the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in place of word ‘shall’ in the opening lines of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression ‘may’ and not ‘shall’ in the opening Section of 271AAB shows that the Legislature did not intend

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

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.

12. As analyzed above, it has clearly emerged that explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), not only authorizes but actually mandates the AO to compare the return filed u/s 139 and u/s 153A to conclude that the assessee had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. While considering the imposition of penalty

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.

12. As analyzed above, it has clearly emerged that explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), not only authorizes but actually mandates the AO to compare the return filed u/s 139 and u/s 153A to conclude that the assessee had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. While considering the imposition of penalty

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.

12. As analyzed above, it has clearly emerged that explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), not only authorizes but actually mandates the AO to compare the return filed u/s 139 and u/s 153A to conclude that the assessee had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. While considering the imposition of penalty

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

penalty under clause © of this section, is hereby deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Because the case of the assessee is comes under the ambit of Explanation 7 deeming provisions of section 271(1)(c) are clearly applicable to the assessee. 12. As far as provisions of section 271

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

penalty under clause © of this section, is hereby deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Because the case of the assessee is comes under the ambit of Explanation 7 deeming provisions of section 271(1)(c) are clearly applicable to the assessee. 12. As far as provisions of section 271

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 274 – seeking to impose penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) – contents of the notice – requirements of. Assessee is a trust and running a school – income of assessee is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) – Search was conducted in the group case of assessee – notice issued u/s 153C – returned file in response thereto – assessment completed u/s 153A on the returned loss – assessment

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 12 Narayana Heights & Tower. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding

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)

u/s 271AA(1A) of the Income Tax Act can be levied. While enacting Section 271AAB, the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in place of word ‘shall’ in the opening lines of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression ‘may’ and not ‘shall’ in the opening Section of 271AAB shows that the Legislature did not intend

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable.” 11. In the above factual matrix, we now refer to the contentions advanced by both the parties. Firstly, we refer to the contentions advanced by the ld CIT DR. During the course of hearing, the ld. CIT DR submitted that first of all, ground challenging the legality of order u/s 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.

271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty was invited only when conditions prescribed u/s 271(1)(c) exist— ‘Concealment of particulars of income' and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' referred to in section 271(1)(c) denote different connotations—In notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of even date, both limbs of section 271(1)(c) were reproduced in proforma notice and irrelevant

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty was invited only when conditions prescribed u/s 271(1)(c) exist— ‘Concealment of particulars of income' and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' referred to in section 271(1)(c) denote different connotations—In notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of even date, both limbs of section 271(1)(c) were reproduced in proforma notice and irrelevant