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

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

16,10,463/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of\nthe I.T. Act?\"\n3.3 In ITA No. 197/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following\ngrounds of appeal:-\n\"1. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is\njustified in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,01,50,594/- u/s 271

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

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

16,10,463/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?\"\n3.3 In ITA No. 197/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-\n\"1. 1. 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

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)

16,10,463/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?" 3.3 In ITA No. 197/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. 1. 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

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)

section 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a penalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee. 4. It is further submitted that in Para 11 of the assessment order the penalty proceedings

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of\npenalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach.\nThis is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been\ninitiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be\nmade only on the ground

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 4A thereto-Penalty was imposed on assessee-\nTribunal upheld disallowance but it deleted order imposing\npenalty holding that it was not case of furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income, so far as contribution to pension scheme was\nconcerned-Held, wrong claim was made for deduction and\nexplanation was offered-In absence of finding that assessee had\nfailed to prove such

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)

16 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, Ajmer. account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has- (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed

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(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

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 without specifying the specific default of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T.Act, i.e either default of clause (a) or default of clause (b) of the said sub section. Prior to the imposition of penalty another stereotyped show cause notice dated 09/02/2022 was issued by the Assessing Officer simply stating that

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.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© for filing of inaccurate particular of income / concealment of income are initiated by way of issue of notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act. 4. Subject to above remarks total income of the assessee is recomputed as under:- Income as declared by the assessee as per original return. Income from business or profession Rs.61

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

u/s 271(1)(d) of the Act.\nHeld : In the case the assessee was found to be guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of\nincome and therefore, was held liable for penalty. The assessee had itself admitted the\nmistake and thus, the penalty was rightly imposed. However, the penalty of Rs.2,16,520/-.\n5.3 CIT vs. Chennupati Tyre & Rubber Products

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

16,520/- was imposed\nupon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is imposable\ni.e. 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, as computed below:\nThe amount of penalty is being worked out as under:\nTax on assessed income : Rs. 2,82,987/-\nTax that would have been chargeable : Rs. 1,74,729/-\nTax Sought

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

16,520/- was imposed\nupon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is imposable\ni.e. 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, as computed below:\nThe amount of penalty is being worked out as under:\nTax on assessed income : Rs. 2,82,987/-\nTax that would have been chargeable : Rs. 1,74,729/-\nTax Sought

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)

16 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Jt. CIT on 22nd March, 2004-Penalty levied by JL. CIT by order dt. 28th May, 2004 was clearly barred by limitation- Sec. 275(1)(c) was applicable to the case Even when the authority competent to impose penalty under s. 271D

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)

16 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Jt. CIT on 22nd March, 2004-Penalty levied by JL. CIT by order dt. 28th May, 2004 was clearly barred by limitation- Sec. 275(1)(c) was applicable to the case Even when the authority competent to impose penalty under s. 271D

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

16,520/- was imposed\nupon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is imposable\ni.e. 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, as computed below:\nThe amount of penalty is being worked out as under:\nTax on assessed income : Rs. 2,82,987/-\nTax that would have been chargeable : Rs. 1,74,729/-\nTax Sought

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

16,520/- was imposed\nupon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is imposable\ni.e. 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, as computed below:\nThe amount of penalty is being worked out as under:\nTax on assessed income : Rs. 2,82,987/-\nTax that would have been chargeable : Rs. 1,74,729/-\nTax Sought

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.

16 reads as under: - "Penalty Notice Under Section 274. Read with Section 271 of the IT Act, 1961. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2012-13. It appears to me that you have: - Read With Section 271(1)(c) concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income." Therefore, there is no specific