ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 148: 9.1 In the case of CIT vs. Pushpendra Surana (2014) 264 CTR 0204 (Raj) wherein it was held that (DPB- 6-8): “6. In our considered view, the CIT (Appeals) and so also the Income Tax Appellate Authority both have considered the matter, in detail, and finally arrived at a conclusion that the income

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

264 CTR 0577 (Bom)\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Concealment of particulars of income—\nRespondent-assessee had filed return for A.Y. 1994-95 claiming\ndeductions u/s 80IA on ground that it had set up new plant and\nmachinery-AO rejected same claim and also levied penalty @\n300% u/s 271(1)(c)—CIT(A) dismissed claim of deduction u/s

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 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

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed,\nor 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed,\nor six months from

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

penalty proceedings\".\n(b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of\nrevision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year

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

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed,\nor 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed\nor 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or\nsix 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed,\nor 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in\nthe course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed,\nor 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed,\nor 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed,\nor six months from

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 271(1) of IT Act could be levied. Reliance is further placed on other judicial pronouncements (with head-notes) (P. B. page No. 29 to 32): 13 NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS VS ACIT, CIRCLE- JUHNJHUNU Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (S.L.P. (C) No. 23272 of 2016 (P.B. Page

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature.” 3. No penalty in S.148 cases: 3.1 It is further pertinent to note that in the cases where the assessee did not disclose the income in the return of income filed originally but later on when notice u/s 148 (or u/s 153A) has been issued

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

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed,\nor six months from

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise and thus the penalty levied by the learned AO as well as conformed by the learned CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. Reliance for this proposition is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 162 (Gujarat) HiHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Kirit Dahyabhai Patel