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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) to the assessee for the same addition. 5. Assessee company was not right person to allege that it has taken cash loan and the same were taken by some other persons. 6. Complete working was not given either assessment stage or penalty proceeding stage: - 7. The 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 appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) to the assessee for the same addition. 5. Assessee company was not right person to allege that it has taken cash loan and the same were taken by some other persons. 6. Complete working was not given either assessment stage or penalty proceeding stage: - 7. The 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

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

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

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

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

u/s 271AAB.\"\n(c) Issue of Mens rea:-\nThe appellant has also contended that in imposition of penalty mens-rea also\nplays a vital role before imposing the penalty, it is always compulsory to prove the\nmens-rea of the assessee as malafide for concealment of income or for\navoidance of any provision of law in force intentionally.\nThe above

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, 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 found that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. In the penalty order there is no finding regarding where the concealment is vis-à-vis the returned income. As per the facts of the case

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)

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

DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 263, cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings us 271(1)(c)/270A/271AAB. The issue involved is no longer Res Integra in as much as identical issue is directly covered by the binding decision in case of CIT vs Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 27 Taxmann 447 (Raj) (DPB 1-3), holding that: "In J.K. D'Costa's case (supra

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: 27:1(1)(c

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: 27:1(1)(c

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.

1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(t)(c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. (Para 5 Page no-3 of the Penalty order of the AO) 2. The AO is not clear in his mind as to what default has been committed by the assessee, for which penalty needs

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

u/s 271E is clearly exigible and consequently, he ordered to levy penalty of Rs. 9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan other than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section 271E of the Act. 21 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers

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)

u/s 271E is clearly exigible and consequently, he ordered to levy penalty of Rs. 9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan other than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section 271E of the Act. 21 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, 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

u/s 271E is clearly exigible and consequently, he ordered to levy penalty of Rs. 9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan other than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section 271E of the Act. 21 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271 & 274-JP-2025 /JP/2024 DCIT vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers