ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be construed strictly. Unless it is\nfound that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of\nincome, penalty cannot be imposed. In the penalty order there is no finding\nregarding where the concealment is vis-à-vis the returned income. As per the facts\nof the case

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 271, be deemed to represent the income\nin respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty\nlevied by the AO of Rs.72,45,844/- u/s: 27

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)

section 271, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty levied by the AO of Rs. 72,45,844/- u/s: 27

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)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[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

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[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

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

27. In support, reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that when conditions to Explanation 7 of section 271(1)(c) are not fulfilled and when the appellant has determined the ALP in good faith and with due diligence, penalty cannot be levied: " DCIT v. Mastek Ltd. (ITA No. 2785 & 2786/Ahd/2013) " Mastek Ltd v. DCIT

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

27. In support, reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that when conditions to Explanation 7 of section 271(1)(c) are not fulfilled and when the appellant has determined the ALP in good faith and with due diligence, penalty cannot be levied: " DCIT v. Mastek Ltd. (ITA No. 2785 & 2786/Ahd/2013) " Mastek Ltd v. DCIT

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 27 Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal vs DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer 271(1)(c) are separately initiated on this issue. But the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

section 271 would not satisfy the requirement of law. The assessee should know the ground which he has to meet specifically, otherwise, the principle of natural justice is offended on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Tej Bhan Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[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

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.

27^ dagger (1)(c) got attracted for imposition of penalty and therefore the impugned penalty needs to be deleted There is a failure on the part of the AO to put to the assessee a specific charge which is fatal to the penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings entail civil consequences for the assessee The AO is required to apply his mind

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

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

27,28,37 and 39 of the statement recorded of Sh. Vivek Sethia u/s 132(4) of the Act. 16. Regarding the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee revised its ROI within time available u/s 139, hence explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable, it was submitted that first of all, the question comes

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(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

section 271(l)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The Hon'ble High Court went on to hold that: 'Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.... But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

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