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 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 for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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 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 for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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

274 r.w.s.271E\nof the Act on 14.02.2023 initiating penalty under section 271E of the Act for\nviolation of provisions of section 269T of the Act vide show cause notice\ndated 01.03.2023. The assessee filed its reply on 15.3.2023 in response to\nabove show cause notice on ITBA. Again after change of incumbent,\nanother show cause notice dated 03.08.2023 was issued

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

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

274 r.w.s.271E\nof the Act on 14.02.2023 initiating penalty under section 271E of the Act for\nviolation of provisions of section 269T of the Act vide show cause notice\ndated 01.03.2023. The assessee filed its reply on 15.3.2023 in response to\nabove show cause notice on ITBA. Again after change of incumbent,\nanother show cause notice dated 03.08.2023 was issued

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 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 for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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 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 for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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 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 for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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

274 r.w.s.271E\nof the Act on 14.02.2023 initiating penalty under section 271E of the Act for\nviolation of provisions of section 269T of the Act vide show cause notice\ndated 01.03.2023. The assessee filed its reply on 15.3.2023 in response to\nabove show cause notice on ITBA. Again after change of incumbent,\nanother show cause notice dated 03.08.2023 was issued

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

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

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 for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

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

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

274 of the Act\nindicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory\nbut directory. Accordingly we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory\nbut to be imposed on merits of the each case. \"The penalty order u/s 271AAB is\nan appealable order u/s 246A before CIT (A). If the penalty u/s 271AAB

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued for concealment of income by filing of\ninaccurate particulars of income\"\nb) Notice u/s 274\nFurther in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued for concealment of income by filing of\ninaccurate particulars of income\"\nb) Notice u/s 274\nFurther in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section

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

Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for deletion of penalty amounting to Rs.2,60,090/-imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)©of the Act and the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) for which the ld.AR of the assessee has filed following

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

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 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did\nnot specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

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.

penalty order u/s 271(1)©r.w.s. 274 of the I.T. Act on 18-04-2017 by observing as under:- ‘’05. In view of the totality of the facts and keeping in view the provisions of section