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

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

penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of\nincome were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) vide show cause notice dated\n24.12.2018.\nA further opportunity of being heard was granted vide notice dated\n07.07.2015. It would be worthwhile to mention that no further appeal had\nbeen filed by the assessee against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A\ndated

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)

28-07- 2016 and proceeding for AY 2015-16 was abated and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the I.T. Act was not completed. Hence, the claim of the assessee that there is no difference in the return filed u/s 139(1) and 153A of the Act has no substance as return filed u/s 139(1) was not assessed

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

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

28-07-2016 and proceeding for AY 2015-16 was abated and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the I.T. Act was not completed. Hence, the claim of the assessee that there is no difference in the return filed u/s 139(1) and 153A of the Act has no substance as return filed u/s 139(1) was not assessed

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)

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have been passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO is clearly barred by limitation. 6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of income on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance 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

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have\nbeen passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO\nis clearly barred by limitation.\n\n6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of\nincome on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance u/s

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 35AD\nin accordance with law for Rs.15,25,62,502/-. However, the approval\nfrom the Ministry of Tourism was delayed and it was received on\n16/3/2016 valid from 14/3/2016 to 13/3/2021 (five years). Copy of the\ncertificate so received is available on Paper Book Page No. 10-11. In\nview of this, the claim of the assessee of deduction

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)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 and not 271AAB. In this respect, the copy of notice has been produced by the ld. A.R. before me. It is seen that the ld. A.R is correct in observing that the section of 28 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. penalty has not been correctly mentioned by the AO in the caption. However, the AO will get the benefit

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) is wrong, unwarranted, bad in law as the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, are different defaults and they cannot be intermixed. 22. Now, coming to the other contention of the ld AR. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that there is no concealment or reporting of inaccurate particulars of income

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) is wrong, unwarranted, bad in law as the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, are different defaults and they cannot be intermixed. 22. Now, coming to the other contention of the ld AR. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that there is no concealment or reporting of inaccurate particulars of income

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 274 – seeking to impose penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) – contents of the notice – requirements of. Assessee is a trust and running a school – income of assessee is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) – Search was conducted in the group case of assessee – notice issued u/s 153C – returned file in response thereto – assessment completed u/s 153A on the returned loss – assessment

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case notice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads as under: “Penalty Notice Under Section 274, Read with Section 271

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)

271 and not 271AAB. In this respect, the copy of notice has been produced by the ld. A.R. before me. It is seen that the ld. A.R is correct in observing that the section of penalty has not been correctly mentioned by the AO in the caption. However, the AO will get the benefit of section 292BB of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

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

28,37 and 39 of the statement recorded of Sh. Vivek Sethia u/s 132(4) of the Act. 16. Regarding the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee revised its ROI within time available u/s 139, hence explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable, it was submitted that first of all, the question comes

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)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

28,95,855/- levied by the AO @ 30% of the undisclosed income under clause 1(c) of section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act to Rs. 1,09,65,285/- under clause 1(a) of that section despite the fact that manner of earning of undisclosed income was not disclosed by the assessee. 2. Before