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

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

35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nagpur – Trib) held as under:\n\"search assessments made under section 153A cannot be treated as\ncontinuance of normal assessment proceedings whether abated or not and,\ntherefore, it will not be justified to refer to returned income under section 139 for\npurpose of imposition of penalty under section 271 (1) (c).....\n.....where returned income filed under

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

35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nagpur – Trib) held as under:\n\"search assessments made under section 153A cannot be treated as\ncontinuance of normal assessment proceedings whether abated or not and,\ntherefore, it will not be justified to refer to returned income under section 139 for\npurpose of imposition of penalty under section 271 (1) (c).....\n.....where returned income filed under

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

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

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

section 153A CASES REFERRED TO CITv Chhabra Emporium [2003] 264 ITR 249/130 Tasman 818 (Delhi) (para 6.3), CIT v. SDV Chandr [2004] 266 ITR 175/136 Taxman 537 (Mad.) (para 6.3), GebilalKanhaialal (HUF) v. AM. CIT270 ITR 523/120051 143 Tasman 42 (Rai) 10 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR (para 6.3), Axsit. CIT. GehilalKanhaialal

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

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

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

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

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

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)

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,35,55,000/-, without considering that the undisclosed income was detected solely in consequence of the search action taken by the department and the disclosure of additional income was not voluntary, as per Explanation 5A to section 271(1

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)

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,35,55,000/-, without considering that the undisclosed income was detected solely in consequence of the search action taken by the department and the disclosure of additional income was not voluntary, as per Explanation 5A to section 271(1

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

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(1

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

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) 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