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

Section 271(1)(c).\n4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred\nin confirming the penalty of Rs.5,18,55,995/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 without considering that the assessee was eligible for\ndepreciation otherwise and the deduction was claimed due to mistake of\ncounsel which

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)

271(1)(c ) of the I.T.Act as well as penalties levied u/s 271AAB of the I.T.Act on the income voluntary disclosed in the returns of income. This decision has also been followed by the Honble ITAT in its decision dated 18.02.2020 in IT(SS) A No 260/AHD /2017 in the case of Lajwantiben M Manglani Vs DCIT Central Circle

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)

271(1)(c ) of the I.T.Act as well as penalties levied u/s 271AAB of the I.T.Act on the income voluntary disclosed in the returns of income. This decision has also been followed by the Honble ITAT in its decision dated 18.02.2020 in IT(SS) A No 260/AHD /2017 in the case of Lajwantiben M Manglani Vs DCIT Central Circle

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)

271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act without specifying the specific default of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T.Act, i.e either default of clause (a) or default of clause (b) of the said sub section. Prior to the imposition of penalty another stereotyped show cause notice dated 09/02/2022 was issued by the Assessing Officer simply stating that

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.

24 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR It has been held by Hon’ble Court that the notice would have to specifically state the ground mentioned in Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act namely as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars of the income. Further, issuing printed form/ paper

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)

24. Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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)

24. Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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

24,774/-\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for\nconcealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Id. AO levying penalty, assessee\npreferred an appeal before

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

24,774/-\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for\nconcealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.\n6.\nAggrieved from the order of the Id. AO levying penalty, assessee\npreferred an appeal before

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

24,774/-\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for\nconcealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Id. AO levying penalty, assessee\npreferred an appeal before

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

24,774/-\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for\nconcealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Id. AO levying penalty, assessee\npreferred an appeal before

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

24,774/-\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for\nconcealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Id. AO levying penalty, assessee\npreferred an appeal before

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 274 read with section 271(1)© of the Act and the same is reproduced below. ‘’NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward No. 7(2), Jaipur Dated: 24

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is parimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

penalty of Rs.22,21,149/- under sub section 1(c) of section 271\nAAB of the IT Act, 1961 @30% in above said additional income.\n3.\nThat the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of\ngrounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.\n3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

u/s 274 and the jurisdictional notice being vague, the consequent levy of penalty is illegal and deserves to be deleted in full. 8. In view of above facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceeding is void ab initio. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the decision of Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Subhash