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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.153A:\nIn Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that:\n\"Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes

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)

22,670/- vide order dated 30.09.2021 by accepting the additional income voluntarily offered by the assessee for taxation in the revised computation of income. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A) of the IT Act separately and accordingly issued show cause notices dated 30.09.2021 under section 271 read with section 274 of the IT Act without specifying

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

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.

22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 No._____ dated 06.06.2012. *have concealed the particulars of your income or______ furnished inaccurate particulars or such income. Penalty u/s 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.

22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 No._____ dated 06.06.2012. *have concealed the particulars of your income or______ furnished inaccurate particulars or such income. Penalty u/s 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.

22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 No._____ dated 06.06.2012. *have concealed the particulars of your income or______ furnished inaccurate particulars or such income. Penalty u/s 271

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) is wrong, unwarranted, bad in law as the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, are different defaults and they cannot be intermixed. 22. Now, coming to the other contention of the ld AR. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that there is no concealment or reporting of inaccurate particulars

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) is wrong, unwarranted, bad in law as the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, are different defaults and they cannot be intermixed. 22. Now, coming to the other contention of the ld AR. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that there is no concealment or reporting of inaccurate particulars

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

22 Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal vs DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer but for both the charges, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was to be deleted.” 12. Expl. 5A to section 271(1)(C) – not applicable: 12.1. At the outset, it is a trite law that a panel provision has to be construed strictly. Therefore, the provisions of S. 271

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)

22 R.P. Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer. penalty then it is a pre-condition for invoking the provisions of section 271AAB that the said income disclosed by the assessee in the statement under section 132(4) is an undisclosed income as per the definition provided under section 271AAB. Therefore, the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB has to examine

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

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

section 271(1)(c), it lays down the following essential conditions which needs to be satisfied before the assessee is fastened with the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act: (1) Firstly, it talks about a situation where the search has been initiated u/s 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007. In the present case

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)

u/s 271AA(1A) of the Income Tax Act can be levied. While enacting Section 271AAB, the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in place of word ‘shall’ in the opening lines of Section 271AAB of the Act. The choice of the expression ‘may’ and not ‘shall’ in the opening Section of 271AAB shows that the Legislature did not intend

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) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If it has claimed any exemption after disclosing the relevant basic facts and under ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1961, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases, penalty should not be imposed. In such cases rather it is the duty of the Assessing Officer

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

22. In Manu Engineering Works (supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court noticed that the charge at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings as well in the penalty order was uncertain and the expression used at both the stages was concealment of particulars of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It struck down the penalty

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 13/03/2015 wherein the penalty has been initiated “on assessed undisclosed income” as evident from copy of notice scanned at page No. 9 ITA 419/JP/2018_ 21 Shri Ashok Kr. Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT of this order. The Assessing Officer has not specified under which sub clause of Section the notice has been issued. Thus

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 13/03/2015 wherein the penalty has been initiated “on assessed undisclosed income” as evident from copy of notice scanned at page No. 9 ITA 421/JP/2018_ 21 Shri Ram Das Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT of this order. The Assessing Officer has not specified under which sub clause of Section the notice has been issued. Thus

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

section 271(l)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The Hon'ble High Court went on to hold that: 'Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.... But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty

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)

22 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jaipur, therefore the contents of assessment, entire assessment record, seized material etc. was within in his knowledge. Furthermore, transactions which were termed as loan, for which the reference letter for penalty u/s 271D/271E was given by Ld. AO to Addl. CIT were held as “Unexplained