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)

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under ss. 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding

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

b)\nof sub-section (1) of section 275 is significantly missing from clause (c) of section\n275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\n27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in\nnot having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and\n269T are not related to the assessment proceedings

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

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

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

b)\nof sub-section (1) of section 275 is significantly missing from clause (c) of section\n275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\n27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in\nnot having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and\n269T are not related to the assessment proceedings

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

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

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

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

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

b)\nof sub-section (1) of section 275 is significantly missing from clause (c) of section\n275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\n27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in\nnot having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and\n269T are not related to the assessment proceedings

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)

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under ss. 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding

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

penalty proceedings were initiated in terms of section 271 or\nsection 273 which were the principal provisions for imposing penalty under\nChapter XXI. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings was linked with\nassessment proceedings and the orders in such assessments were subject to\nappeal, the findings in such proceedings ordinarily became the foundation for\ninitiating proceedings for 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

b)\nof sub-section (1) of section 275 is significantly missing from clause (c) of section\n275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\n27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in\nnot having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and\n269T are not related to the assessment proceedings

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

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

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

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

b) upholding finding recorded by the learned AO that imposition of penalty u/s\n271AAB is mandatory in nature, and\n(c) rejecting submission of the appellant that penalty u/s 271AAB cannot be\nimposed only on the basis of admission of income by the appellant without\nproving it to be undisclosed income within meaning of section 271AAB of the IT\nAct

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

271 (1) (c) cannot be imposed”.\nIn view of above facts of the case penalty order is not sustainable in law and\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/- imposed by Ld. A.O. being wrong and bad in law which\ndeserves to be deleted.\nGround No. (3)\nThat the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.\nThe bench also noted from the submission of the case law as filed\nthat while relying on the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh\nChandra Mittal 119 Taxman 433(SC) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has\nconfirmed the view of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court [ 123 TAXMAN

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), penalty is not leviable\nsince the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s.\n139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the\nTribunal in the case of CIT vs. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303\n(Ahmedabad - Trib

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), penalty is not leviable since the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s. ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 12 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. 139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in 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), penalty is not leviable since the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s.\n139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303 (Ahmedabad - Trib

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

B" Shri Ajoy Sharma Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 543 to 547/JP/2024-Annexure "C" 4.6. The penalty of ₹2,60,090 levied u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified as the disallowance of 1,53,549 towards cost of improvement and Rs. 35,000 towards transfer expenses was made only due to non submission of bills during assessment. In this connection