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- E beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of\nSection 275 (1) (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 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

271- E beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of\nSection 275 (1) (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

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- E beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of\nSection 275 (1) (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- 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 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

271- E beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of\nSection 275 (1) (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(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

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

271(1)(c)\nof the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 404481 imposed by him is\nwrong and bad in law.\n2.\nThat without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in\nlaw in confirming penalty of Rs.4

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

271(1)(c)\nof the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 404481 imposed by him is\nwrong and bad in law.\n2.\nThat without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in\nlaw in confirming penalty of Rs.4

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

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 AAC (1) and subsequent levy of penalty is ab initio bad in law and facts. On this aspect the Learned Assessing Officer has opined that the assessee having paid tax under section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 surmounts to the assessee having consented for addition under the provisions. This view of the Learned Assessing Officer is untenable

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) AO alleged that assessee had concealed its income,\norders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled [In favor of\nassessee]\n2.7 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO\nand confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be cancelled.\n•\nGround-3The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed unjustified since there was no deliberate attempt to conceal income. The ruling reaffirmed that agricultural income remains tax- free, and its deposit into a bank account does not change its nature or make it liable for taxation. 2. Vinaya Sharma vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur, November 2024) 2.1. Facts of the Case: Vinaya

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 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty be imposed, independently of the quantum proceedings. ii. The first and foremost requirement of Section 69 is establishing of fact that the investment is really and conclusively made with the support of direct and cogent material on record. Neither in quantum proceedings nor even in penalty proceedings, any such evidence