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

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

4 in sub section\n(1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect.\nFurther, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated in the\nassessment order on the ground that the income was detected during the survey\naction and neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty order there is any\nfinding regarding

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)

4 in sub section (1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect. Further, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated in the assessment order on the ground that the income was detected during the survey action and neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty order there is any finding regarding

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

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

4 in sub section (1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect.\nFurther, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated in the assessment order on the ground that the income was detected during the survey action and neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty order there is any finding regarding

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)

section 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a penalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee. 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

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated,\ni.e. whether concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of\nincome and High Court on appeal held that matter was covered by aforesaid decision of\nDivision Bench and therefore there was no substantial question of law arising for\ndetermination, there was no merit in SLP filed by revenue

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© for filing of inaccurate particular of income / concealment of income are initiated by way of issue of notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act. 4. Subject to above remarks total income of the assessee is recomputed as under:- Income as declared by the assessee as per original return. Income from business or profession Rs.61

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties

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)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

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) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

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)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 132(4) recorded during the course of search nor a declaration in the return of income, the penalty has been kept at a higher pedestal which can vary from 30% to 90%. Further, it is noted that the provisions of section 271AAB overrides section 271

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

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)

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause notice 274 r.w.s 271

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)

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause notice 274 r.w.s 271

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

4) was held invalid and thus, was a non-existing document, it was only a ROI\nfiled u/s 148, which alone could be considered for the purposes of penalty u/s\n271(1)(c). The AO, therefore seriously erred in ignoring the ROI filed u/s 148,\nmaking no claim of deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

4) was held invalid and thus, was a non-existing document, it was only a ROI\nfiled u/s 148, which alone could be considered for the purposes of penalty u/s\n271(1)(c). The AO, therefore seriously erred in ignoring the ROI filed u/s 148,\nmaking no claim of deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

4) was held invalid and thus, was a non-existing document, it was only a ROI\nfiled u/s 148, which alone could be considered for the purposes of penalty u/s\n271(1)(c). The AO, therefore seriously erred in ignoring the ROI filed u/s 148,\nmaking no claim of deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

4) was held invalid and thus, was a non-existing document, it was only a ROI\nfiled u/s 148, which alone could be considered for the purposes of penalty u/s\n271(1)(c). The AO, therefore seriously erred in ignoring the ROI filed u/s 148,\nmaking no claim of deductions (except the correct one u/s 80C) and showing no\nloss