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

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

section 271(1)(c) and\ntherefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income for an\namount of Rs.1,34

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)

34 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, Ajmer. Channai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shri R. Elangovan (supra) at pages 7 to 10 has held as under :- “ It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 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

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

34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty imposable (300% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 1,36,665/- Penalty levied (100% of the tax sought to evaded Rs. 45,555/- In view of the above, a penalty of Rs. 45,555/- is hereby levied u/s 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

34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty imposable (300% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 1,36,665/- Penalty levied (100% of the tax sought to evaded Rs. 45,555/- In view of the above, a penalty of Rs. 45,555/- is hereby levied u/s 271

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. (2) Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 34,05,436/- imposed under section

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)

34 R.P. Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer. 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty imposable (300% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 1,36,665/- Penalty levied (100% of the tax sought to evaded Rs. 45,555/- In view of the above, a penalty of Rs. 45,555/- is hereby levied u/s 271

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

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

34. Now, coming back to the second alternate condition (Para 32(2A) supra), it need to be examined whether the same is satisfied in the instant case or not. Only in a scenario where this condition is finally held to be satisfied, the levy of penalty can be held justified by invoking explanation 5A to section 271

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)

34,587/- 5 1167/JP/2025 2017-18 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 11,02,13,000/- 6 1168/JP/2025 2017-18 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 90,95,257/- 7 1169/JP/2025 2018-19 19.06.2025 Levy

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)

34,587/- 5 1167/JP/2025 2017-18 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 11,02,13,000/- 6 1168/JP/2025 2017-18 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 90,95,257/- 7 1169/JP/2025 2018-19 19.06.2025 Levy

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

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

34. In this regard, we refer to the provisions of Section 271AAB which begins with the stipulation that the Assessing officer may direct the assessee and the assessee shall pay the penalty as per clause (a) to 42 M/s Rambhajo’s vs. ACIT (c) so satisfied in sub-section (1) to Section 271AAB. Further, as per sub-section

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

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.

u/s 271 (1) (c) were initiated against you during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2008-09 and notice was already served on you. It is submitted any notice issued under section 274, read with Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should specify under which limb of Section 271

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

34,587/-\n5\n1167/JP/2025\n2017-18\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.11,02,13,000/-\n6\n1168/JP/2025\n2017-18\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.90,95,257/-\n7\n1169/JP/2025\n2018-19\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s