KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

u/s 274 of the Act\nshould specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment\nof particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case\nnotice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads\nas under: -\n“Penalty Notice Under Section 274. Read with Section 271

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

u/s 274 of the Act\nshould specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment\nof particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case\nnotice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads\nas under: -\n\"Penalty Notice Under Section 274. Read with Section 271

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

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

Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable\nsince the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s.\n139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the\nTribunal in the case of CIT vs. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303\n(Ahmedabad - Trib

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

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

Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable since the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s.\n139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) and in the case

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)

2. 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(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 4 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income

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)

2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which limb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s 274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income or furnishing

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

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have\nbeen passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO\nis clearly barred by limitation.\n\n6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of\nincome on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance u/s

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)\nwere satisfied or fulfilled so as to justify imposition of penalty-\nTribunal merely followed dictum of Supreme Court in several\ndecisions and thus penalty was rightly deleted by Tribunal—Penalty\nhas therefore been rightly deleted-Such a finding essentially based on\nfacts and circumstances peculiar to assessee, does not raise any\nsubstantial question of law-Court directed

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2-11) and whereby disallowance of Rs.15,672/-\nin\nrespect of deduction u/s 80IB and disallowance of Rs.1,44,263/- made u/s 40(a)(ia)\nhas been deleted. Further, tradition addition of Rs. 3,00,000 which is being\nconfirmed by ld. CIT(A) is solely on estimate basis and accordingly no penalty\nwas levied by ld. AO on this

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)

2) No penalty under the provisions of [section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation

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)

2) No penalty under the provisions of [section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, 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. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 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)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

271(1)(C), 271A and 271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

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.

section 271(1)(c) the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs 1,14,75,790/- For that reason, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default uls 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(t)(c) is imposed on the furnishing

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)

2) No penalty under the provisions of [section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) [or sub- section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference