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

32,25,630/- from shares. The assessee explained that the shares have been\nheld as stock in trade and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. The\nAO, however, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made disallowance of\nRs.71,75,575/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained by CIT(A) and\nITAT holding that section

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)

32,25,630/- from shares. The assessee explained that the shares have been held as stock in trade and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. The AO, however, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made disallowance of Rs.71,75,575/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained by CIT(A) and ITAT holding that section

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)

32 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, Ajmer. penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

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)

u/s. 271AAB of the Act. He also submitted that satisfaction for levy of penalty has to be recorded at the time of initiation of the penalty and not at the time of levying of penalty. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the ld. AO has not specified the limb under which the penalty can be levied

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)

32 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. 5.2 As per the provisions of section 275 (1) (c) of the Act the penalty orders are time barred 5.2.1 At the outset, it is submitted that based on the undisputed facts available on record, imposition of penalty vide the impugned orders u/s 271D and 271E passed by the ld. JCIT, Jaipur

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)

32 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. 5.2 As per the provisions of section 275 (1) (c) of the Act the penalty orders are time barred 5.2.1 At the outset, it is submitted that based on the undisputed facts available on record, imposition of penalty vide the impugned orders u/s 271D and 271E passed by the ld. JCIT, Jaipur

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

32 Taxmann.com\n133 and Mehthan Ispat Ltd vs. DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 444 (Kolkata Trib.)\n11. No difference between the returned and assessed income hence no penalty\nleviable:\n11.1 Only the last ROI acted upon can be a basis for penalty:\nNeedless to say that in the cases of penalty of concealment/furnishing inaccurate\nparticular, the very starting point

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

32 Taxmann.com\n133 and Mehthan Ispat Ltd vs. DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 444 (Kolkata Trib.)\n11. No difference between the returned and assessed income hence no penalty\nleviable:\n11.1 Only the last ROI acted upon can be a basis for penalty:\nNeedless to say that in the cases of penalty of concealment/furnishing inaccurate\nparticular, the very starting point

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

32 Taxmann.com\n133 and Mehthan Ispat Ltd vs. DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 444 (Kolkata Trib.)\n11. No difference between the returned and assessed income hence no penalty\nleviable:\n11.1 Only the last ROI acted upon can be a basis for penalty:\nNeedless to say that in the cases of penalty of concealment/furnishing inaccurate\nparticular, the very starting point

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

32 Taxmann.com\n133 and Mehthan Ispat Ltd vs. DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 444 (Kolkata Trib.)\n11. No difference between the returned and assessed income hence no penalty\nleviable:\n11.1 Only the last ROI acted upon can be a basis for penalty:\nNeedless to say that in the cases of penalty of concealment/furnishing inaccurate\nparticular, the very starting point

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

32 Taxmann.com\n133 and Mehthan Ispat Ltd vs. DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 444 (Kolkata Trib.)\n11. No difference between the returned and assessed income hence no penalty\nleviable:\n11.1 Only the last ROI acted upon can be a basis for penalty:\nNeedless to say that in the cases of penalty of concealment/furnishing inaccurate\nparticular, the very starting point

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

271- Е\nbeyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of Section 275 (1)\n(c).\"\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 39\n(Delhi)/[2017] 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) [05-05-2017] held as under

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

271- Е\nbeyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of Section 275 (1)\n(c).\"\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 39\n(Delhi)/[2017] 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) [05-05-2017] held as under

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)

32 to 34] “…The above finding of the tribunal makes it clear that additions made by AO were based on estimation only. A fact or allegation based on estimation cannot be said to be correct only, it can be incorrect also. Therefore, in facts and circumstances of the case, penalty was wrongly levied by AO. The basis for levying 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

271-\nE beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of Section 275 (1)\n(c).\"\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 39\n(Delhi)/[2017] 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) [05-05-2017] held as under

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

32 of CIT (A)\norder of A.Y. 2015-16 271E penalty).\n4.\nAppeal before Hon'ble Bench of ITAT Jaipur\n4.1\nAggrieved from the order of CIT (A), the department filed the appeal and\nthe assessee also filed the C.O.\n4.2\nThe department raised 4 grounds in each appeal in form 36 and the same\nare reproduced hereunder

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

271(1)(c) to the assessee for the same addition.\n5.\nAssessee company was not right person to allege that it has taken cash loan\nand the same were taken by some other persons.\n6.\nComplete working was not given either assessment stage or penalty proceeding\nstage: -\n7.\nThe first onus is on department to show that the assessee company