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)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not vis-a vis the original return under Section 139…….” Applying the above principle, we note that in the present case, the AO has accepted the assessee’s return filed u/s

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

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

penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is\nany concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not\nvis-a vis the original return under Section 139.......\nApplying the above principle, we note that in the present case, the AO\nhas accepted the assessee's return filed u/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is\nany concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not\nvis-a vis the original return under Section 139....\"\"\nApplying the above principle, we note that in the present case, the AO\nhas accepted the assessee's return filed u/s

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

u/s 271(1)(c) and also on merits. The Ld.\nCIT(A), however, without deciding the legal ground of assessee, confirmed the\nlevy of penalty by applying Explanation 1 to section

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)

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) vide order\ndated 27.03.2022.\n8.1 Before us, the ld. A/R has submitted that in the show cause notice\nissued under section 274 read with section 271 read with section\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act the AO has not specified the ground for initiation\nof penalty

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271-\n272 of the Act was issued on 30/12/2009 by ticking of the notice as under:-\n\"U/s 271(1)(c):- Concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of\nincome\".\nThe ld Assessing Officer again gave notice during the course of penalty

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)

penalty levied on the basis of stereotyped show cause Notice issued u/s 271 read with section 274 of the Income

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)

penalty levied on the basis of stereotyped show cause Notice issued u/s 271 read with section 274 of the Income

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.

section 271(1)(c) the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs 1,14,75,790/- For that reason, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default uls 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, penalty u/s

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)

u/s 271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act without specifying the specific default of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T.Act, i.e either default of clause (a) or default of clause (b) of the said sub section. Prior to the imposition of penalty

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)

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause notice 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) to the assessee

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)

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause notice 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) to the assessee

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any\nconcealment in the return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, and not vis-a vis the\noriginal return u/s 139”\n11.3.4 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Trib) wherein, it was held\nas under:\n“Section

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, 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. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was wrong and bad in law as it did not specify in which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any\nconcealment in the return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, and not vis-a vis the\noriginal return u/s 139”\n11.3.4 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Trib) wherein, it was held\nas under:\n“Section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any\nconcealment in the return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, and not vis-a vis the\noriginal return u/s 139”\n11.3.4 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Trib) wherein, it was held\nas under:\n“Section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any\nconcealment in the return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, and not vis-a vis the\noriginal return u/s 139”\n11.3.4 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Trib) wherein, it was held\nas under:\n“Section