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

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

penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of\nincome were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) vide show cause notice dated\n24.12.2018.\nA further opportunity of being heard was granted vide notice dated\n07.07.2015. It would be worthwhile to mention that no further appeal had\nbeen filed by the assessee against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A\ndated

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 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect. Further, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated in the assessment order on the ground that the income was detected during the survey action and neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty order there is any finding regarding the retraction of the surrendered income

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

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

section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect.\nFurther, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated in the assessment order on the ground that the income was detected during the survey action and neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty order there is any finding regarding the retraction of the surrendered income

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

143(3)\ndt.31.12.2015 wherever any addition/ disallowance is made, there is no reference of\ninitiation of penalty proceedings though in para 11 of the order penalty proceeding is stated\nto be initiated against certain additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\nHoweverat the end of the assessment order it is stated that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)\nhave been

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)

143(3) dt.31.12.2015 wherever any addition/ disallowance is made, there is no reference of initiation of penalty proceedings though in para 11 of the order penalty proceeding is stated to be initiated against certain additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Howeverat the end of the assessment order it is stated that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have been

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the\nmatter has been decided on technical issue, we are not expressing any view on merit of\nthe case. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by the ld CIT(A).\n7.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, M/s. Dwarka Gems Ltd., filed its return

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 271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the specific default committed by the appellant rendering the appellant liable to penalty under Income Tax Act. 4.2 Ld CIT(A) also erred in law in not quashing the patently illegal penalty order when the final show cause notice issued

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, 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. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 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)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

271(1)(C), 271A and 271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

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.

143(3) of the I.T. Act at Rs.1,14,75,790/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charged interest u/s 234B, 234C, 234D & Withdrawal of excess refund u/s 244A. ITNS 150 is part of this order. Notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)© of the Act is issued separately on the issue discussed in para 3.1 of this order

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)

143(3) of the IT Act at Rs. 93,59,859/- vide his order dated 24.05.2021 by making addition on account of undisclosed commission sales. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A) of the IT Act separately and accordingly issued show cause notices dated 24.05.2021 and 09.02.2022 under section 271 read with section

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

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 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the specific default committed by the appellant rendering the appellant liable to penalty under Income Tax Act. 4.2 Ld CIT(A) also erred in law in not quashing the patently illegal penalty order when the final show cause notice issued by the AO on the basis

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

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)

271- E beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of Section 275 (1) (c)." Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 39 (Delhi)/[2017] 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) [05-05-2017] held as under- "9. However, this question

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)

271- E beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of Section 275 (1) (c)." Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 39 (Delhi)/[2017] 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) [05-05-2017] held as under- "9. However, this question