KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

271(1)(c)\nof the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 404481 imposed by him is\nwrong and bad in law.\n2.\nThat without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in\nlaw in confirming penalty of Rs.4

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

271(1)(c)\nof the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 404481 imposed by him is\nwrong and bad in law.\n2.\nThat without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in\nlaw in confirming penalty of Rs.4

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

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

143(3) r.w.s.153A dated 24.12.2018.\" meaning thereby that the appellant adhered to the surrender of income which was made during survey.\nFurther the main contention in the penalty order is that had the survey action not taken place the income surrendered in survey and resultantly offered in the return filed u/s 139(1) would have remained undetected and thus

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)

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,01,50,594/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 4 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income

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

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

143(3)\nr.w.s 153A of the I.T. Act was not completed. Hence, the claim of the\nassessee that there is no difference in the return filed u/s 139(1) and 153A of\nthe Act has no substance as return filed u/s 139(1) was not assessed u/s\n143(3) of the I.T. Act.\nFurther, the claim of the assessee that

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.07.10.2016wherever any addition/ disallowance is made, there is no reference of initiation\nof penalty proceedings though in para 9 of the order penalty proceeding is stated to be\ninitiated against certain additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Howeverat\nthe end of the assessment order it is stated that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have 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)

2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which limb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s 274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income or furnishing

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2-11) and whereby disallowance of Rs.15,672/-\nin\nrespect of deduction u/s 80IB and disallowance of Rs.1,44,263/- made u/s 40(a)(ia)\nhas been deleted. Further, tradition addition of Rs. 3,00,000 which is being\nconfirmed by ld. CIT(A) is solely on estimate basis and accordingly no penalty\nwas levied by ld. AO on this

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf.\nRefer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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

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

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