ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

35,315/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?\"\n3.4 As is evident from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all these bunch of appeal are identical relating to the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) and we have heard these cases together with the consent of the parties and have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

35,315/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?" 3.4 As is evident from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all these bunch of appeal are identical relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and we have heard these cases together with the consent of the parties

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

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

35,315/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of\nthe I.T. Act?\"\n3.4 As is evident from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all\nthese bunch of appeal are identical relating to the levy of penalty u/s.\n271(1)(c) and we have heard these cases together with the consent of the\nparties

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

U/s 271(1)(c) of the\nincome tax Act, 1961 and a penalty notice was issued accordingly..\nYou are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why\nan order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961. if you do not wish to avail yourself

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)

35 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, 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

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)

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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), on the trading additions and commission payment sustained in the quantum proceedings of Rs. 4,42,953, worked out on estimate basis. 5 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 1.2. During the course of quantum proceedings, before the lower authorities, all the details of the purchases made by the assessee firm from the parties, alleged

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City [supra] has held that penalty u/s 271D is without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty can be levied. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read as under: “In these appeals, we are concerned with the question as to whether penalty

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

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 ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur has initiated the penalty under section 271AAB, there is any ambiguity in the charge or there is any lack of application of mind on part of the Assessing officer. Further, the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB is not based on addition made and investigation/enquiry conducted during the course of assessment proceedings

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

35 taxmann.com\n250 (Karnataka)/[2013] 218 Taxman 423 (Karnataka)/[2013] 359 ITR 565\n(Karnataka)/[2013] 263 CTR 153 (Karnataka) [13-12-2012])\nThe object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations\nindicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss\nof revenue. The penalty under that provision

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

35,55,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Ground 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the penalty order passed by the ld. AO upon the premise that notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) does not unambiguously state whether the Appellant has concealed its income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

35,55,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Ground 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the penalty order passed by the ld. AO upon the premise that notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) does not unambiguously state whether the Appellant has concealed its income

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b). On receipt of the orders, he consulted a Chartered Accountant and was advised to wait till the corrected orders comes so as to decide which order is against which appeal and to deal with the connected finding in an appeal. In the meanwhile assessee failed ill and was advise to take rest and in that

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 274 and the jurisdictional notice being vague, the consequent levy of penalty is illegal and deserves to be deleted in full. 8. In view of above facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceeding is void ab initio. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the decision of Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Subhash