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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

32 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271

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) could not be imposed on debatable issues. Further, it is a settled judicial principle that penalty cannot be imposed automatically merely because there was a transfer pricing adjustment and the appellant had not appealed against it. 30. It was also submitted that merely because the TPO was of a different view on the methodology of determining

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) could not be imposed on debatable issues. Further, it is a settled judicial principle that penalty cannot be imposed automatically merely because there was a transfer pricing adjustment and the appellant had not appealed against it. 30. It was also submitted that merely because the TPO was of a different view on the methodology of determining

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

32,66,194/- In A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 the assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139 however, in A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 the assessee filed return of income dated 30.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 respectively. Pursuant to the search, notices u/s 153A were issued in all the years on dated 12.10.2011 requiring the assessee

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

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

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

32. On perusal of the explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), it lays down the following essential conditions which needs to be satisfied before the assessee is fastened with the penalty u/s

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

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

32. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income in its statement recorded u/s 132(4) and therefore, there cannot be any question of said surrender of income not falling in the definition of undisclosed income. It was submitted that the penalty U/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature and is imposed at the varying

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

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. Date : 15-05-2017. To, Name M/s./Shri/Smt. Ram Das Sonkia Address Pitaliyon Ka Chowk, Johari Bazar, Jaipur PAN AJTPS 9679 M Whereas in the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16 penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 274 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB

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