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

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

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

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

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act he has in his penalty order noted that as the undisclosed income of Rs. 3,98,13,270/- was not declared in the ITR DCIT, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma originally filed under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act he has in his penalty order noted that as the undisclosed income of Rs. 3,98,13,270/- was not declared in the ITR DCIT, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma originally filed under section

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

u/s 271 (1)(c) must be initiated. Section 271(1)(c) is attracted only when the assessee has concealed his income. When two opinions are possible, adopting one of them can scarcely be viewed as malafide, with intent to evade the payment of income tax. 9 ITA 146/JP/2021_ Shri Jain Hind Agarwal Vs ITO (v) Penalty cannot be levied only

AMAN GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

270(1)(c) and imposed penalty of Rs.7,18,660. The Ld. DCIT has erred to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) despite the following facts: (i) The Appellant has already offered the Subsidy received from government as Income in the next assessment year i.e. 2015-16 when conditions of subsidy were satisfied.We were showing the subsidy received from

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c). In the circumstances, it is prayed that the penalty levied by the Ld Assessing Officer and upheld by Ld CIT (A) be cancelled. It is prayed accordingly.” 6. The ld DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

270(A) read below- (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence; (d) recording of any false entry in the books of account; (e) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and (f) failure

ACE INDIA MEDICAL SYSTEM,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Cit(A). Thus Order Of Cit(A) To Such Extent Is Erroneous In Nature.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty on the addition, sustained by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270 wherein in the context of whether provisions in respect of penalty for violation of provisions of section 139 shall be applicable where there is a violation of section 153C, read with section 153A in respect of filing return of income, it was held as under: "7. We have heard both the sides on this issue. The provisions of section

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

270 ITR 599 5. Addition u/s 68 :- That the learned AO has grossly erred both in law and facts invoking section 68 without jurisdiction and per-sea illegal because this section can be invoke where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for the any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation. 6. Explanation

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any Explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer

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

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. Accordingly, ITAT hold that the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section, which makes the order passed u/s 153A nonest, void ab initio, bad in law, the same deserves to be quashed.. 5. That the Ld CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts in not accepting this ground because the ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in charging interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section, which makes the order passed u/s 153A nonest, void ab initio, bad in law, the same deserves to be quashed.. 5. That the Ld CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts in not accepting this ground because the ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in charging interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.3