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)

penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If no one attends this office on the said date of hearing, the case shall be decided on the basis of the material available on records. Yours faithfully, 4 ITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE

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

41,42,000 + 71,75,575/-) and thus imposed penalty of Rs.72,45,844/-, being\n100%\nof the amount of tax sought to be evaded.\n\n3.3 In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed detailed submission challenging\nthe legality of order passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) and also on merits. The Ld.\nCIT(A), however, without deciding

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

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 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 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 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB of the IT Act and a penalty notice was issued accordingly. You are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c) which provides for separate charge of “concealment of particulars of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”, there is a singular charge under section 271AAB i.e, of the existence of undisclosed income for the specified previous year which is found during the course of search in the case of the assessee. We entirely agree with

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

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

41. In the assessee’s statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 19.12.2014, in question No. 4, the assessee’s reference was drawn to Annexure-AS 1 to 11 seized during the course of search in respect of which Shri Vivek Sethia, the son of the assessee, in his separate statement recorded u/s 132(4), has admitted an amount

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

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

41,778/- on account of mismatch in the share trading turnover. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 21st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is parimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is parimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible

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

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

41 M/s Rambhajo’s vs. ACIT 32. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income in its statement recorded u/s 132(4) and therefore, there cannot be any question of said surrender of income not falling in the definition of undisclosed income. It was submitted that the penalty U/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature

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

4,68,40,099/- relating to TP adjustment.” Therefore, following the legal proposition as discussed above and in light of facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the contention of the ld AR that in the absence of any specific charge against the assessee in the penalty notice and subsequently in the penalty order, consequent penalty imposed

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

4,68,40,099/- relating to TP adjustment.” Therefore, following the legal proposition as discussed above and in light of facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the contention of the ld AR that in the absence of any specific charge against the assessee in the penalty notice and subsequently in the penalty order, consequent penalty imposed

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

41 taxmann 496 (Kar HC) 21 Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal vs DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer 10. The crux of the decision in Manjunatha (Supra) whereas is that if the SCN is vague, on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty can be imposed. The AO must reach to a conclusion whether the penalty is initiated for both

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

41,210/- Sh. Mahesh Kumar Jain and others vs. ACIT and the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 29.03.2016 and on the same date, notice u/s 274 r.w. sec 271 AAB (1)(c) was issued to the assessee to show cause why penalty u/s 271 AAB(1)(c) should not be imposed upon the assessee for the undisclosed