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

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

penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is\nany concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not\nvis-a vis the original return under Section 139....\"\"\nApplying the above principle, we note that in the present case, the AO\nhas accepted the assessee's return filed u/s

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)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not vis-a vis the original return under Section 139…….” Applying the above principle, we note that in the present case, the AO has accepted the assessee’s return filed u/s

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

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

penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is\nany concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not\nvis-a vis the original return under Section 139.......\nApplying the above principle, we note that in the present case, the AO\nhas accepted the assessee's return filed u/s

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 153A of the Act. 4. The Delhi High court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Neeraj Jindal [2017] 79 taxmann.com 96/393 ITR 1 (Delhi) has deleted penalty u/s 271

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)(c) is applicable\nas in this case, a search was carried out after 01/6/2007 and the assessee has furnished\nreturn for A.Y. 2007-08 before search and additional income has been disclosed U/s\n153A.Therefore, deeming provisions are applicable. It is undisputed fact that the assessee\nhas disclosed additional income in return filed U/s 153A on the basis

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)

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

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)

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any\nconcealment in the return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, and not vis-a vis the\noriginal return u/s 139”\n11.3.4 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Trib) wherein, it was held\nas under:\n“Section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any\nconcealment in the return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, and not vis-a vis the\noriginal return u/s 139”\n11.3.4 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Trib) wherein, it was held\nas under:\n“Section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any\nconcealment in the return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, and not vis-a vis the\noriginal return u/s 139”\n11.3.4 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Trib) wherein, it was held\nas under:\n“Section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any\nconcealment in the return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, and not vis-a vis the\noriginal return u/s 139”\n11.3.4 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Trib) wherein, it was held\nas under:\n“Section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any\nconcealment in the return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, and not vis-a vis the\noriginal return u/s 139”\n11.3.4 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Trib) wherein, it was held\nas under:\n“Section

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

section 271 (1) (c) are not applicable. Therefore when returned income u/s 153A is accepted there is no default u/s 271 (1) (c) and deleted the penalty

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

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

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

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

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