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)

144 24,39,82,885 2. Imposition of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of abovementioned acceptance and repayment of alleged unsecured loans 2.1 In the assessment order, though the loans were added in the income of the assessee, considering the same as same as “Unexplained Business receipts or unaccounted income” but still the ld. AO referred the matter to Additional

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

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 to Additional

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

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 to Additional

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

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 to Additional

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

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 to Additional

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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 to Additional

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

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 to Additional

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

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 to Additional

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 271D of the Act. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied in respect of the captioned appellants for all the assessment years under consideration. By this consolidated order, all the appeals are allowed and disposed off accordingly. 38. In the result, all the above captioned appeals are allowed” On this preposition, I also refer

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

144 of the Act and not to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act again and again. In this view of the matter, we restrict the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under 18 Sh. Dayaram Yadav, Jaipur

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed unjustified since there was no deliberate attempt to conceal income. The ruling reaffirmed that agricultural income remains tax- free, and its deposit into a bank account does not change its nature or make it liable for taxation. 2. Vinaya Sharma vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur, November 2024) 2.1. Facts of the Case: Vinaya

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2017 for the year under consideration and thereby also ordered to pay penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessment was made at Rs.5.38,800/- which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2017 for the year under consideration and thereby also ordered to pay penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessment was made at Rs.5.38,800/- which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2017 for the year under consideration and thereby also ordered to pay penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessment was made at Rs.5.38,800/- which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount

MR. MANOJ KUMAR GOUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

144 of the IT Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.11.2017 (PB pages 1-5) in which loss was assessed at Rs. 43,658/-. The AO also issued show cause notice for imposing penalty under section 271B (PB page 6) and eventually imposed penalty under section 271B of Rs. 53,609/- vide order dated 24.05.2018 (PB Pages 7-10) alleging that

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

271(1)(c) and Section 274 of Act are relevant to examine the question involved in the case. A reading of the aforementioned sections in juxtaposition goes to shows that in order to impose the penalty, the learned AO, apart from others, ought to have proved the following ingredients: - (1) Assessee has been furnished return of income

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

u/s. 153A of the Act and even on the small addition made in the Vinaya Sharma & others vs. ACIT assessment proceeding was also pursuant to the revised computation of income filed by the assessee in the assessment proceeding for which the ld. AO did not find any fault and the nature of income added are short term capital gain

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

u/s. 153A of the Act and even on the small addition made in the Vinaya Sharma & others vs. ACIT assessment proceeding was also pursuant to the revised computation of income filed by the assessee in the assessment proceeding for which the ld. AO did not find any fault and the nature of income added are short term capital gain