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) r.w.s.153A:\nIn Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that:\n\"Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return\nfiled by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the\nprevious return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes

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)

3 SCR 510 wherein inter alia it has been held that unless the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act exist in a particular case, penalty cannot be imposed and it was further held that 271 of the Act being a penal provision is required to be construed strictly. The following observations made in the said judgment were

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.153A:\nIn Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that:\n\"Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes

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

13,17,575/- added or disallowed by the AO which has reached\nfinality in computing the total income of the assessee shall, for the purpose of\nclause (c) of this subsection (1) of section 271, be deemed to represent the income\nin respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty\nlevied by the AO of Rs.72

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)

13,17,575/- added or disallowed by the AO which has reached finality in computing the total income of the assessee shall, for the purpose of clause (c) of this subsection (1) of section 271, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty levied

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.

3. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 588 (Delhi) the head note of which reads Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Conditions Precedent) Assessment year 2003-04 Assessing Officer while framing assessment order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RENU\nAGARWAL\nIN THE ITAT JAIPURITA No. 764/JP/2015(2017) 185 TTJ 0036\n(Jp) ((UO))\nLevy of Penalty u/s.271(1)(c)—Deletion—AO levied penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB by\nholding that assessee had made wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB-\nAO levied penalty

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

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)

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section meaning thereby that before imposing the penalty under section 271AAB, the AO must give show cause notice and an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The requirement of giving an opportunity of being

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)

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section meaning thereby that before imposing the penalty under section 271AAB, the AO must give show cause notice and an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The requirement of giving an opportunity of being

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)

13-10-2015] held as under:- “10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non- compliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings

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)

13-10-2015] held as under:- “10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non- compliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings

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

3,24,774/-\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for\nconcealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.\n6.\nAggrieved from the order of the Id. AO levying penalty, assessee\npreferred an appeal

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

3,24,774/-\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for\nconcealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Id. AO levying penalty, assessee\npreferred an appeal

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

3,24,774/-\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for\nconcealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Id. AO levying penalty, assessee\npreferred an appeal

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

3,24,774/-\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for\nconcealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Id. AO levying penalty, assessee\npreferred an appeal

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

3,24,774/-\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for\nconcealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Id. AO levying penalty, assessee\npreferred an appeal

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.

3 of the assessment order, the assessing officer, A.O. observed as under: - "As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is also initiated." 3.3 As per section 271 (1) (c), the assessing officer is empowered to impose penalty if in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that