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 271(1) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961. if you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being\nheard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on\nor before the date fixed for hearing on 29.12.2016 at 01:00PM which will be considered\nbefore such order (s) is/are made.\n12/16

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

282 ITR 0642 (Guj), it was held that “In the absence of any specific finding in the penalty order or the order of the CIT(A) as to whether there was concealment of income of furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, impugned order of the Tribunal upholding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable.” 2.2.4.Covered issue: This aspect

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly

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.

section 271 (1) (c). 5 ITA 1266/JP/2019_ M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT It is pertinent to note that in the said assessment order and notice Ld. A.O. has not clearly mentioned the limb, on the basis of which, penalty was proposed to be imposed. Ld. A.O. in assessment order or penalty notices did not specified the limb under which

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c), ld. AO has to apply his mind and come to a conclusion that whether the penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars of incomeORfurnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1.2. In the penalty proceedings, there is heavy onus on the ld. AO, initiating penalty, of proving the assessee firm guilty of concealment of income as penalty

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 274 of the Act penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which is at page 216 of the paper book of the assessee and the AO failed to point out specific default for imposition of penalty i.e furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the act of the AO by not striking

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power