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

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

200/- vide order dated 24.12.2018 and penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of\nincome were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) vide show cause notice dated 24.12.2018.\nA further opportunity of being heard was granted vide notice dated 07.07.2015. It would be worthwhile to mention that no further appeal had been filed by the assessee against the assessment order u/s

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, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, 1 confirm the penalty levied by the AO of Rs. 26.38,078/-u/s: 271(1)(c)of the Act, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.’’ 5.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed

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 271, be deemed to represent the income\nin respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty\nlevied by the AO of Rs.72,45,844/- u/s: 27:1(1)(c) of the Act, being 100% of the\ntax sought to be evaded.\"\n\n3.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued\n(PB 9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to\nexplain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the\ncase for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive\nclaim of deduction

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued\n(PB 9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to\nexplain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the\ncase for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive\nclaim of deduction

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued\n(PB 9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to\nexplain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the\ncase for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive\nclaim of deduction

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued\n(PB 9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to\nexplain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the\ncase for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive\nclaim of deduction

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued\n(PB 9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to\nexplain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the\ncase for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive\nclaim of deduction

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out in the show cause notice, whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that as far as addition of Rs. 2,79,000/- and of Rs. 10,05,301/- confirmed

FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

200 (Chd. Special Bench). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record including the case laws cited by the respective parties. In this case, it is noted that the AO imposed the penalty of Rs.24.70 lacs u/s 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269SS

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

271 shall not apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 and subsequent assessment years and penalty be levied under the newly inserted section 270A with effect Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT from 1st April, 2017. The new section 270A provides for levy of penalty

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

271 shall not apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 and subsequent assessment years and penalty be levied under the newly inserted section 270A with effect Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT from 1st April, 2017. The new section 270A provides for levy of penalty

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

271 D is independent section where 1st limb of section in not applicable by the assessee and whereas second limb of section is applicable in 13 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT assessee case in case penalty was initiated on 07.08.2019 and from the end of 1st Sept 2019. In the present case, whereas the penalty was initiated

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 21[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble High Court Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of Hon’Ble Itat & The Matter Is Subjudice?”

Section 271(1)(c), minimum penalty leviable is 100 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded and the maximum penalty leviable is 300 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded. 4 ACIT vs. Jaipur Telecom Private Limited Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 50,78,834/- (being 100% of tax sought to be evaded) u/s 271