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)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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

4 of 1988), shall apply to and in relation to\nany action initiated for the imposition of penalty on or before the 31st day of March,\n1989.\nExplanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section—\n(1)\n(ii)\n(iii)\nthe time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard 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

4 of 1988), shall\napply to and in relation to any action initiated for the imposition of penalty on or\nbefore the 31st day of March, 1989.\nExplanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this\nsection,-\n(i)\nthe time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be\nreheard under the proviso to section

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

4 of 1988), shall apply to and in relation to\nany action initiated for the imposition of penalty on or before the 31st day of March,\n1989.\nExplanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section—\n(i)\n(ii)\n(iii)\nthe time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard 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

4 of 1988), shall\napply to and in relation to any action initiated for the imposition of penalty on or\nbefore the 31st day of March, 1989.\nExplanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this\nsection,-\n(1)\n(ii)\n(iii)\nthe time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard 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

4 of 1988), shall\napply to and in relation to any action initiated for the imposition of penalty on or\nbefore the 31st day of March, 1989.\nExplanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this\nsection,-\n(1)\n(ii)\n(iii)\nthe time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard 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

section 263, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed;\n(c)\nin any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the\nproceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has\nbeen initiated, are completed, or six months from

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer ought to have been recorded his satisfaction. However, Ld. AO has failed to do so. The same is in violation of CBDT Circular no. 09/DV/2016 dated 26.04.2016 advising Assessing Officer to make a reference

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

172/- as brokerage income by invoking provisions\nof section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice dated\n21.12.2018 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section\n271AAB(1)(a)/271AAB(1)(c) should not be initiated against the assessee. Subsequently,\nthe Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u/s 271AAB

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

4 of 1988), shall\napply to and in relation to any action initiated for the imposition of penalty on or\nbefore the 31st day of March, 1989.\nExplanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this\nsection,-\n(1)\n(11)\n(iii)\nthe time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be\nreheard 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

4 of 1988), shall\napply to and in relation to any action initiated for the imposition of penalty on or\nbefore the 31st day of March, 1989.\nExplanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this\nsection,-\n(i)\n(ii)\n(iii)\nthe time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be\nreheard 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

4 of 1988), shall\napply to and in relation to any action initiated for the imposition of penalty on or\nbefore the 31st day of March, 1989.\nExplanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this\nsection,-\n(1)\n(ii)\n(iii)\nthe time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be\nreheard under

SHRI OM PRAKASH MODI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 196/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Modi, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar Central Circle-2, (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acfpm 8683 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 01/01/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271Aab Imposed At Rs. 3,75,00,000/-, Arbitrarily, Thus The Order So Passed Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Has Duly Disclosed In The Statements U/S 132(4) & The Mode & Manner Was Also Explained, Further Due Tax Was Also Paid, Therefore, The Penalty Of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- So Levied Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed On Additional Income Of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- Duly Offered

172 (HC) (Raj) wherein it has been held as under: From a plain reading of sec. 158BFA(2) it does not appear that in all cases where undisclosed income is determined by the AO under cl. (c) of s. 158BC, the imposition of penalty shall follow as a natural consequence thereof. A discretion is vested with the AO to 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

4 of 1988), shall\napply to and in relation to any action initiated for the imposition of penalty on or\nbefore the 31st day of March, 1989.\nExplanation. In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this\nsection,-\n(1)\n(ii)\n(iii)\nthe time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be\nreheard under

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

172 ITR 250 SC. 12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer the latest decision of SC in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) wherein it has been held-(i) the Explanations appended to section 271(1)(c) indicate the element of strict liability,(ii) the object behind the enactment shows that it provides for remedy for loss

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.’’ 9.3 Though the above decision is in respect to the penalty u/s 271 E but it made clear that when the original assessment order itself is set aside, the satisfaction recorded therein for the purpose of initiation

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are thatsearch and seizure operations under section 132(1) of the Actwere

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

172 ITD 396 (ITAT\nJaipur)\n“The provisions of section 43CA have been inserted by the Finance\nAct, 2013 w.e.f 01.04.2014 relevant to assessment year 2014-15 and if\nwe look at the provisions of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4), it\nemphasizes a scenario where the date of agreement fixing value of\nconsideration for transfer of the assets