DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 271(1)(c) the penalty is initiated [i.e. whether penalty initiated for concealment t of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.] 5.6 Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the judgment of Sweta Construction (ITA 534/2008) has made observ 9. Taking into consideration the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which virtually considered the subsequent

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 271(1)(c) the penalty is initiated [i.e. whether penalty initiated for concealment t of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.] 5.6 Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the judgment of Sweta Construction (ITA 534/2008) has made observ 9. Taking into consideration the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which virtually considered the subsequent

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 271(1)(c) the penalty is initiated [i.e. whether penalty initiated for concealment t of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.] 5.6 Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the judgment of Sweta Construction (ITA 534/2008) has made observ 9. Taking into consideration the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which virtually considered the subsequent

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 274 – seeking to impose penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) – contents of the notice – requirements of. Assessee is a trust and running a school – income of assessee is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) – Search was conducted in the group case of assessee – notice issued u/s 153C – returned file in response thereto – assessment completed u/s 153A on the returned loss – assessment

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

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.

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of Act which has been issued in printedletter without ticking / marking the applicable clause / without striking-off the irrelevant limb which reveals that the penalty was initiated as well as levied for both the charges. It is apparent that if AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, was satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

156-195, wherein it was held as under: “10. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is the nature of penalty provisions as contained in section 271AAB(1)(a) and 271AAB(1)(c). In other words, whether these provisions provide for levy of penalty on account of separate and independent charges or these provision provide for levy

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)

156 affirmed" Similar view was taken again by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 31 taxmann.com 52/352 ITR 327 wherein it was held under: "Penalty under s. 271D-Limitation under s. 275-Applicability of cl (a) or cl. (c) of 8. 275(1)- Show-cause notice was served on the assessee

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)

156 affirmed" Similar view was taken again by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 31 taxmann.com 52/352 ITR 327 wherein it was held under: "Penalty under s. 271D-Limitation under s. 275-Applicability of cl (a) or cl. (c) of 8. 275(1)- Show-cause notice was served on the assessee

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota (Raj.) for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (page nos. 74-80 of paper book) • Copy of ledger A/c of following shares brokers from the books of account of assessee depicting the details of equity shares purchase by the assessee are enclosed (page nos.81-83 of paper

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, 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. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — VS — MANJUNATHA

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

156 affirmed\"\nSimilar view was taken again by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the CIT v. Jitendra\nSingh Rathore [2013] 31 taxmann.com 52/352 ITR 327 wherein it was held under:\n\"Penalty under s.271D-Limitation under s.275-Applicability of cl (a) or cl. (c) of 8.\n275(1)- Show-cause notice was served on the assessee by AO on 27th

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

156 affirmed\"\nSimilar view was taken again by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the CIT v. Jitendra\nSingh Rathore [2013] 31 taxmann.com 52/352 ITR 327 wherein it was held under:\n\"Penalty under s.271D-Limitation under s.275-Applicability of cl (a) or cl. (c) of 8.\n275(1)- Show-cause notice was served on the assessee by AO on 27th

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c), ld. AO has to apply his mind and come to a conclusion that whether the penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars of incomeORfurnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1.2. In the penalty proceedings, there is heavy onus on the ld. AO, initiating penalty, of proving the assessee firm guilty of concealment of income as 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

156 affirmed\"\nSimilar view was taken again by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the CIT v. Jitendra\nSingh Rathore [2013] 31 taxmann.com 52/352 ITR 327 wherein it was held under:\n\"Penalty under s.271D-Limitation under s.275-Applicability of cl (a) or cl. (c) of 8.\n275(1)- Show-cause notice was served on the assessee by AO on 27th

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

156 affirmed\"\nSimilar view was taken again by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the CIT v. Jitendra\nSingh Rathore [2013] 31 taxmann.com 52/352 ITR 327 wherein it was held under:\n\"Penalty under s.271D-Limitation under s.275-Applicability of cl (a) or cl. (c) of s.\n275(1)- Show-cause notice was served on the assessee by AO on 27th