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)

271E of the Act. 2. Penalty order passed is barred by time limitation as the same has not been passed within the time stipulated 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

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

271E of the Act.\n2.\nPenalty order passed is barred by time limitation as the same has not been\npassed within the time stipulated u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible

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

271E of the Act.\n2.\nPenalty order passed is barred by time limitation as the same has not been\npassed within the time stipulated u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible

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

271E of the Act.\n2.\nPenalty order passed is barred by time limitation as the same has not been\npassed within the time stipulated u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible

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

271E of the Act.\n2.\nPenalty order passed is barred by time limitation as the same has not been\npassed within the time stipulated u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible

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 under section 275 as\noriginally enacted was directly linked with the completion of proceedings in the\ncourse of which the 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

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

271E of the Act.\n2.\nPenalty order passed is barred by time limitation as the same has not been\npassed within the time stipulated u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible

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

u/s 271E of the Act, hence\nthe penalty imposed is not maintainable, bad in law and deserves to be\nannulled on this count also. On this count we note that there was no\nsatisfaction for levy of penalty in the assessment and even the Id. AO\nconsidered that income and opted to levy the penalty on the other sections

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

u/s 271E of the Act, hence\nthe penalty imposed is not maintainable, bad in law and deserves to be\nannulled on this count also. On this count we note that there was no\nsatisfaction for levy of penalty in the assessment and even the Id. AO\nconsidered that income and opted to levy the penalty on the other sections

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 and remained

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)

271E of the Act. 2. Penalty order passed is barred by time limitation as the same has not been passed within the time stipulated 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

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 in this case. 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. 10 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

u/s 271E is clearly exigible in this case. 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. 10 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

u/s 271E is clearly exigible in this case. 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. 10 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), 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 in this case. 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. 10 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.” 36. The ld. DR had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adinath Builders Pvt Ltd [supra

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.’’ 9.3 Though the above decision is in respect to the penalty u/s

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)

271 and 273 were the two original penalty provisions, which require the penalty proceedings to be initiated during the course of relevant assessment proceedings or the other relevant proceedings, as the case may be. The penalty proceedings could also be initiated during the appellate proceedings arising out of the relevant assessment proceedings. It is only where the assessment proceedings