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)

Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable since the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s. ITA No. 267, 196

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) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to the extent of Rs. 1,58,23,140/-.” Thus even in the concluding part the AO was not sure about the charge and default of the assessee for which the penalty was levied under section 271

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) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to the extent of Rs. 1,58,23,140/-.” Thus even in the concluding part the AO was not sure about the charge and default of the assessee for which the penalty was levied under section 271

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) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to the extent of Rs. 1,58,23,140/-.” Thus even in the concluding part the AO was not sure about the charge and default of the assessee for which the penalty was levied under section 271

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

196 without specifying the limb for reasons in the penalty notice to impose the penalty i.e. Whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore the initiation and imposing of penalty proceedings is wrong, bad in law, in –valid and void ab-initio and ld. CIT(A) has not justified

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271 and 271AAB of the I.T.Act,1961 that undisclosed income detected pertains to specified previous year and in the assessment order, the AO had made addition only on account of undisclosed income found during

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271 and 271AAB of the I.T.Act,1961 that undisclosed income detected pertains to specified previous year and in the assessment order, the AO had made addition only on account of undisclosed income found during

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271 and 271AAB of the I.T.Act,1961 that undisclosed income detected pertains to specified previous year and in the assessment order, the AO had made addition only on account of undisclosed income found during

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

196. The penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was imposed only after the order dated 19.09.2011 of the ld. CIT(A). The said penalty has been imposed with the stipulated time frame after the receipt of the order of Ld. CIT(A).” 6. Further, the ld. DR relied on the finding of the lower authorities

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)

196 ITR 237) and also held in case JK Chemicals Limited (1994) (207 ITR 985). Accordingly expenditure of Rs. 44,81,910/- was disallowed by the AO and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated on this issue for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the assessee debited

DILIP KUMAR ARORA,AJMER vs. ITO, AJMER

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 has held in para 59 to 63 as under:- “59. As the provision stands, the penalty proceedings can be initiated on various ground set out therein. If the order passed by the Authority categorically records a finding regarding the existence of any said grounds mentioned therein and then penalty proceedings is initiated, in the notice

SHAKTI STONEX,INDUSTRIAL AREA KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act thus qualifying for levy of penalty under the said section. The AO has clearly mentioned in the notice u/s274 r.w.s 271 and 271AAB of the I.T.Act,1961 that undisclosed income 8 Shakti Stonex vs. DCIT detected pertains to specified previous year and in the assessment order, the AO had made addition only on account

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act 1961, the assessee was liable to pay the amount of tax evaded as penalty on the undisclosed income of the specified previous year by way of penalty in addition to tax payable by it as the undisclosed income was neither declared in the ITR filed u/s

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act 1961, the assessee was liable to pay the amount of tax evaded as penalty on the undisclosed income of the specified previous year by way of penalty in addition to tax payable by it as the undisclosed income was neither declared in the ITR filed u/s

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

196 TTJ (JP) 232 wherein the Honourable Tribunal has considered a period of 4 years to be reasonable for passing the order u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act. The ratio of the case is not applicable to the penalties u/s 271C etc. and is not related to the limitations provided u/s

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

196 ITR 200 Guj held as under: “ 7. The Commissioner, in the case of the firm, refused to waive penalty and interest for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 only on the ground that the returns filed beyond the prescribed period could not be considered to be returns in the eye of law. As pointed out above, since

M/S. LAXMINATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,CHURU. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.”

section 145(3) of the Act besides addition of interest income on FDRs. The AO had also observed that the assessee had derived interest on IT refund amounting to Rs. 4,20,289/- out of which the assessee company had declared interest on IT refund amounting to Rs. 97,669/- only and had not shown interest on IT refund amounting

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

196), a search proceeding were carried out on 13/02/2020 at the residential as well as business premises of “Saini Gupta Jain Group” of Ajmer. No information about such search is available with assessee company till the date of receipt of order u/s 127 dated 07/04/2021, from the office of PCIT-5, Kolkata(PB Page 46-48), wherein it has been