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)

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as under:- "Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of limitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk) vide assessment order

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)

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as under:- "Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of limitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk) vide assessment order

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n\"Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide assessment

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n\"Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide assessment

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n\"Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide assessment

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n\"Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide assessment

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n\"Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide assessment

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n“Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide assessment

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n\"Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has\nclearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT\nTonk) vide assessment

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n\"Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide assessment

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n\"Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has clearly\nobserved that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT Tonk)\nvide assessment

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n“Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has\nclearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT\nTonk) vide assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) it is held as under:- 11 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. "Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of limitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) it is held as under:- 11 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. "Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of limitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) it is held as under:- 11 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. "Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of limitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) it is held as under:- 11 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. "Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of limitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) held as\nunder:-\n“Thus, a penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed after the expiry of the larger period of\nlimitation. In this case, we find that the Id. JCIT in the impugned penalty order has\nclearly observed that the assessment for A.Y 2015-16 was completed by the AO (ACIT\nTonk) vide assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ignoring the fact that the assessee has\nnot disclosed the profit on the advances received from the customer and\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income. So first we would like to\nexamine what tantamount to \"furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\",\nthe Act does not give any definition. Thus, we see the meaning