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

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

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

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

HARISH JAIN,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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) validity-Non-specific notice-Penalty notices under section 274 r/w s. 271(1)(c) were issued in the typed format without striking off either of two charges, i.e. “have concealed the particulars of your income, or …. or “furnished inaccurate particulars of income”-Considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show-cause notice would not satisfy

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

u/s 271(1)(c) validity-Non-specific notice-Penalty notices under section 274 r/w s. 271(1)(c) were issued in the typed format without striking off either of two charges, i.e. “have concealed the particulars of your income, or …. or “furnished inaccurate particulars of income”-Considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show-cause notice would not satisfy

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 is assailed as under: - 2. Initiation of penalty proceedings is unlawful: - The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 almost accepted the income disclosed by the assessee. However the Learned Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per para 5 of the assessment order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 is assailed as under: - 2. Initiation of penalty proceedings is unlawful: - The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 almost accepted the income disclosed by the assessee. However the Ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per para 5 of the assessment order

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)

263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed, (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed or six months from

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)

263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed, (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed or six months from

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

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

263 (Delhi) as well as in case of Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi). The ld. A/R has also referred to a series of decisions on the point that the penalty under section 271AAB cannot be imposed merely on the surrender made under section 132(4) in the absence of any incriminating material found