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)

3) dt.31.12.2015 wherever any addition/ disallowance is made, there is no reference of initiation of penalty proceedings though in para 11 of the order penalty proceeding is stated to be initiated against certain additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Howeverat the end of the assessment order it is stated that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) have been initiated

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

3)\ndt.31.12.2015 wherever any addition/ disallowance is made, there is no reference of\ninitiation of penalty proceedings though in para 11 of the order penalty proceeding is stated\nto be initiated against certain additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\nHoweverat the end of the assessment order it is stated that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)\nhave been initiated

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

200/-. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 12.01.2018. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 21st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB(1) of the IT Act @ 30% of the undisclosed income

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

200/- which includes the income of Rs. 10,87,91,302/- admitted during search (including income of Rs. 10,69,91,302/- already declared in the return filed u/s 139(1). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 11,18,77,980/- which

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee.” The Hon’ble court also held that initiating penalty proceedings on one limb and find the assessee guilty on another

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

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 to be evaded : Rs. 1,08,258/-\nMinimum penalty 100% : Rs. 1,08,258/-\nMaximum penalty @ 300% : Rs. 3

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

3)/148 on 23.08.2018\nat an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty\nproceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income to the extent of wrong claim of deductions amounting\nto Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income-tax Act, wrong claim of\nloss

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

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 to be evaded : Rs. 1,08,258/-\nMinimum penalty @ 100% : Rs. 1,08,258/-\nMaximum penalty @ 300% : Rs. 3

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

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 to be evaded : Rs. 1,08,258/-\nMinimum penalty @ 100% : Rs. 1,08,258/-\nMaximum penalty @ 300% : Rs. 3

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

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 to be evaded : Rs. 1,08,258/-\nMinimum penalty @ 100% : Rs. 1,08,258/-\nMaximum penalty @ 300% : Rs. 3

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

3) r/w 153A, thereafter initiated penalty by issuance of notice u/s 274 r/w 271 dated 21.30.2014 in respect of all the five items of disallowance/additions by treating them as covered under the expression “concealment particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income” and then finally passed the impunged penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of undisclosed investment

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

200 CTR 0300 (All)(HC) 8.13 It was further submitted that without prejudice to our foregoing submission, even if it is held that the assessee failed to specify the manner and substantiation thereof then still penalty @20% could only be levied as per the provisions of 271AAB(1)(b)which reads as under: “--- (b) a sum computed at the rate

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over