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) and\ntherefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income for an\namount of Rs.1,34,14

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)

14-15) Where penalty notice issued against assessee was not adverted to any specific limb of section 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a penalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s

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

14-15)\nWhere penalty notice issued against assessee was not adverted to any specific limb of\nsection 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a\npenalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated\nagainst assessee

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)

14 as under…… - Hence in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed in detail in foregoing paras as well as following the earlier decision of this Tribunal, we hold that the income surrendered by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) does not fall in the ambit of definition of undisclosed income as contemplated in Explanation

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.

section 271(1)(c) the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs 1,14,75,790/- For that reason, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default uls 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, penalty u/s

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

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

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)

14 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of revision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed, (c) in any other case, after the expiry

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)

14 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of revision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed, (c) in any other case, after the expiry

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case 13 ITA 1266/JP/2019_ M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT notice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads as under: - "Penalty Notice Under Section 274. Read with

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

14,144\n24,39,82,885\n2.\nImposition of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of abovementioned acceptance\nand repayment of alleged unsecured loans\n2.1 In the assessment order, though the loans were added in the income of\nthe assessee, considering the same as same as “Unexplained Business receipts\nor unaccounted income\" but still the Id. AO referred the matter

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

14,144\n24,39,82,885\n2.\nImposition of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of abovementioned acceptance\nand repayment of alleged unsecured loans\n2.1\nIn the assessment order, though the loans were added in the income of\nthe assessee, considering the same as same as “Unexplained Business receipts\nor unaccounted income" but still the Id. AO referred the matter