DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

penalty may not be imposed u/s 271E of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269T of the Act. In compliance to this, an on-line reply dated 28.06.2022 was received from the assessee. 7 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. In response to the show-cause notice issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty may not be imposed u/s 271E of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269T of the Act. In compliance to this, an on-line reply dated 28.06.2022 was received from the assessee. 7 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. In response to the show-cause notice issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

penalty may not be imposed u/s 271E of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269T of the Act. In compliance to this, an on-line reply dated 28.06.2022 was received from the assessee. 7 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd. In response to the show-cause notice issued

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

260/-. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed from the return of income filed u/s 139 and 153A of the Income tax Act, 1961 that the assessee has not shown any income derived from long term capital gain from shares in the return filed u/s 139 of the IT Act. Further, the assessee filed his return

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

260/- (P.B. 41-45). penalty proceedings under section 20.03.1997 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(b) were also separately initiated (P.B. 45-48). 23.02.1998 Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. It was dismissed for want of prosecution. Appeal was filed in ITAT. 7 16.06.1998 The notice u/s

LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

260/- from business. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 considering the income as Rs. 2,26,620/-. Apart from this, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B of the IT Act and consequently after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee penalty

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

260(Jaipur- Trib.). Copies of the decisions at S.No. b), c) & d) above are annexed herewith and marked as Annexures A/5, A/6 & A/7. It is pertinent to point out that in the case of Mohd. Sharif Khan supra the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur has, after considering the relevant case laws, has held that if the relevant portion of the penalty

SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

260 ITR 590 (Raj.): In this case Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that urgent need for taking the cash constitute reasonable cause and therefore penalty u/s 271D is not imposable. Same ratio would apply in penalty u/s 271E. Hon’ble Court has observed as under: “In the present case the Tribunal has found that the assessee

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

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was initiated by the Id. AO in order u/s. 143(3). The first appeal of the assessee was dismissed (P.B. pages 15 to 23) whereas the second appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT was partly allowed (P.B. pages 24 to 35) with direction to allow deduction @ 100% under section 10A of Act on enhanced profit

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

260 Taxman 326 (Karnataka) [20-11- 2018] In the present case also, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of those liabilities by citing credible evidence. Simply the liabilities being reflected against certain names in his books of account would not vouch the genuineness of such liabilities. The language in the section 68 unequivocally makes it clear that where

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

260 Taxman 326 (Karnataka) [20-11- 2018] In the present case also, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of those liabilities by citing credible evidence. Simply the liabilities being reflected against certain names in his books of account would not vouch the genuineness of such liabilities. The language in the section 68 unequivocally makes it clear that where

ITO, JAIPUR vs. SITA RAM KHANDEWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

271 r.w.s. 274 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who cancelled the penalty by observing as under:- …. Further, the assessment order of Shri Phool Chand under section143(3) for the assessment year 2008-09 has been filed where assessment has been made accepting the returned income. Since, in this case money

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

271(1)(c), the penalty. The action is unjustified. illegal or\nexcessive and deserves to be deleted in full.\n\n6.1 The ground is general in nature. The grounds are pre-matture as these are\nagainst mere initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings are\nindependent proceedings and the appellant is required to make his submissions\nbefore the appropriate authority during

AKASH PROMOTORS DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,2385, AKASHDEEP COMPLEX vs. ITO,WARD 1(1), ITO, WARD 1(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Your Honours In The Offline Mode On 30.05.2023 Against The Order Dated Passed By Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac Delhi U/S 250 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. Such Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A) Was Served On The Appellant On 29.03.2023, Thus The Appeal Against The Said Order Was Supposed To Have Been Filed By The Appellant By 28.05.2023, However Though The Appeal Was Instituted On Time Through The Online Mode, Submission Of Appeal In The Offline Mode Got Delayed By 2 Days, As The Appeal Physically Has Been Filed On 30.05.2023 For The Reasons As Explained Below:

section 271(1)(c) applied by Learned AO by levying penalty of Rs. 61,800/- on the assessee by treating the same as unexplained receipt. 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, modify, or alter any ground or grounds of appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. BIRMA DEVI, JAIPUR

14. As a result, this appeal filed by the department-Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act, having arrived at the conclusion that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without any reasonable cause. 5. As is available from the order of penalty, the assessee had challenged the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, by filing the appeal before Learned CIT(A)-2, Jaipur. That appeal was partly allowed

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act read with section 274 of the IT Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. “4.2 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act read with section 274 of the IT Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. “4.2 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant