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 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)

Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable since the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s. ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 12

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

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

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

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)

12 to 15 of order of CIT (A) of A.Y. 2015-16 (against penalty u/s 271D) and therefore in order to brevity, the same is not reproduced here again. 5.3 Submission on Ground No. 1 of departmental appeal wherein it is contended that CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty only on technical ground without giving the findings

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)

12 to 15 of order of CIT (A) of A.Y. 2015-16 (against penalty u/s 271D) and therefore in order to brevity, the same is not reproduced here again. 5.3 Submission on Ground No. 1 of departmental appeal wherein it is contended that CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty only on technical ground without giving the findings

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

u/s 271(1)(c) is separately as assessee has concealed the income." Relevant contents of the Penalty Order are reproduced as under: - 12 ITA 1266/JP/2019_ M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT "As the assessee had not filed any appeal against order of the A.O. and it appears that the assessee is satisfied with the order passed by the A.0.. Therefore

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

u/s 143(2) was issued asking the assessee regarding share\napplication money. Later, the assessee made a surrender w.r.t 12 share\napplicants. Yet however, it was not held as a case of prior detection. Present\ncase is on much stronger footing because here even prior to issue of 148 notice\nitself, the assessee made the disclosure/voluntarily admitted inadvertent wrong\nclaim

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

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

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

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

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

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

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

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

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

12 to 15 of order of\nCIT (A) of A.Y. 2015-16 (against penalty u/s 271D) and therefore in order to\nbrevity, the same is not reproduced here again.\n5.3\nSubmission on Ground No. 1 of departmental appeal wherein it is\ncontended that CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty only on technical ground\nwithout giving the findings

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

12 to 15 of order of\nCIT (A) of A.Y. 2015-16 (against penalty u/s 271D) and therefore in order to\nbrevity, the same is not reproduced here again.\n5.3\nSubmission on Ground No. 1 of departmental appeal wherein it is\ncontended that CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty only on technical ground\nwithout giving the findings

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

12 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 1.4. Any notice issued under section 274, read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income ORfurnishing of inaccurate particulars of income