DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 271D/E and also\nheld that the period of limitation reckoned from the date of assessment order. The\nrelevant finding of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder: -\n19. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Tribunal has held the penalty\norders to be barred by time in terms of section 275(1)(c).\n20. The revenue contends that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

271(1)(c) to the assessee for the same addition.\n5.\nAssessee company was not right person to allege that it has taken cash loan\nand the same were taken by some other persons.\n6.\nComplete working was not given either assessment stage or penalty proceeding\nstage: -\n7.\nThe first onus is on department to show that the assessee company

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

271(1)(c) to the assessee for the same addition.\n5.\nAssessee company was not right person to allege that it has taken cash loan\nand the same were taken by some other persons.\n6.\nComplete working was not given either assessment stage or penalty proceeding\nstage: -\n7.\nThe first onus is on department to show that the assessee company

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 271D/E and also\nheld that the period of limitation reckoned from the date of assessment order.\nThe relevant finding of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder: -\n19. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Tribunal has held the penalty\norders to be barred by time in terms of section 275(1)(c).\n20. The revenue contends that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

penalty proceedings are completed in all cases\nin time.\n19. Secondly, the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, which came into\neffect from 1-4-1989, section 275 was amended. Vide amendment, the time-limit\nfor completion of penalty proceedings which was generally two years from the\nend of financial year in which such proceedings were completed or six months

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 271D/E and also\nheld that the period of limitation reckoned from the date of assessment order. The\nrelevant finding of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder: -\n19. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Tribunal has held the penalty\norders to be barred by time in terms of section 275(1)(c).\n20. The revenue contends that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

penalty under section 275 as\noriginally enacted was directly linked with the completion of proceedings in the\ncourse of which the penalty proceedings were initiated in terms of section 271 or\nsection 273 which were the principal provisions for imposing penalty under\nChapter XXI. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings was linked with\nassessment proceedings and the orders in such

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)

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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 271D/E and also\nheld that the period of limitation reckoned from the date of assessment order.\nThe relevant finding of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder: -\n19. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Tribunal has held the penalty\norders to be barred by time in terms of section 275(1)(c).\n20. The revenue contends that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

penalty proceedings were initiated in terms of section 271 or\nsection 273 which were the principal provisions for imposing penalty under\nChapter XXI. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings was linked with\nassessment proceedings and the orders in such assessments were subject to\nappeal, the findings in such proceedings ordinarily became the foundation for\ninitiating proceedings for penalty and remained

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)

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

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of\npenalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach.\nThis is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been\ninitiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be\nmade only on the ground

RAM KISHORE MEENA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD, MORAK, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

253/-. In respect of all the additions made by the AO except on disallowance made out of certain expenses, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. After the order of CIT(A)/ ITAT, most of the additions were deleted except that disallowance of Rs. 3,72,43,045/- out of compensation of Rs.3.92

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(b) is concerned, from a perusal of the section 273B. it is understood that, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 271, no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assessee as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision

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

u/s 271(1) (c) was passed on 22.03.2013. 3. That ,as the facts narrated above, which are mentioned in the penalty order, out of the 3 additions on which penalty has been levied, 2 , namely those of Rs. 2,79,000/-(unsecured loans below Rs. 20,000/- taken in cash ) and of Rs. 10,05,301/- (advances against booking

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253 or sectior\n260A or section 261 is received by the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner o\nCommissioner, or the order of revision under section 263 or section 264 is\npassed.\n(4) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section_274 shall apply to the order\nimposing or enhancing or reducing penalty under sub-section (2).\n(5) In computing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253 or sectior\n260A or section 261 is received by the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner o\nCommissioner, or the order of revision under section 263 or section 264 is\npassed.\n(4) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section_274 shall apply to the order\nimposing or enhancing or reducing penalty under sub-section (2).\n(5) In computing