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

43,524/-\n11\n1176/JP/2025\n2020-21\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.8,33,67,454/-\n12\n1177/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.32,96,15,250/-\n13\n1178/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty

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

43,524/-\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.8,33,67,454/-\n12\n1177/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.32,96,15,250/-\n13\n1178/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E

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)

43,524/- 11 1176/JP/2025 2020-21 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 8,33,67,454/- 12 1177/JP/2025 2021-22 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 32,96,15,250/- 13 1178/JP/2025 2021-22 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

43,524/-\n11\n1176/JP/2025\n2020-21\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.8,33,67,454/-\n12\n1177/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.32,96,15,250/-\n13\n1178/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty

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

43,524/-\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.8,33,67,454/-\n12\n1177/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.32,96,15,250/-\n13\n1178/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E

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

43,524/-\n11\n1176/JP/2025\n2020-21\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.8,33,67,454/-\n12\n1177/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.32,96,15,250/-\n13\n1178/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty

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)

43,524/- 11 1176/JP/2025 2020-21 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 8,33,67,454/- 12 1177/JP/2025 2021-22 19.06.2025 Levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act vide order dated 28.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 32,96,15,250/- 13 1178/JP/2025 2021-22 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 appeal of the revenue in ITA no

43,524/-\n11\n1176/JP/2025\n2020-21\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.8,33,67,454/-\n12\n1177/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.32,96,15,250/-\n13\n1178/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty

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

43,524/-\n12\n1177/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.8,33,67,454/-\n13\n1178/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.32,96,15,250/-\nAgainst all these appeals of the revenue

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

43,524/-\n12\n1177/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.8,33,67,454/-\n13\n1178/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.32,96,15,250/-\nAgainst all these appeals of the revenue

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

43,524/-\n12\n1177/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.8,33,67,454/-\n13\n1178/JP/2025\n2021-22\n19.06.2025\nLevy of penalty u/s 271E of the Act\nvide order dated 28.08.2023 for an\namount of Rs.32,96,15,250/-\nAgainst all these appeals of the revenue

RAM KISHORE MEENA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD, MORAK, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act be upheld.” ACIT vs. Mangalam Cement Limited. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The AO has levied penalty of Rs. 1,26,58,910/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the return of income, the Assessee claimed

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)© of the Act are applicable in this case and it is a fit case to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. I, therefore, proceed to levy of penalty of Rs.16,64,000/- which is calculated as under:- Computation of Penalty A. Total assessed income as per order u/s 143(3) Rs.5

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)

section 271AAB is not satisfied. Apart from the fact that these transactions were duly recorded in the books of account, the assessee has also produced relevant documents, the details of which are as under :— (A) IN RELATION TO SHARES PURCHASE : Summary of shares purchased during the FY 2012-13 (page No. 87 of paper book) Copy of share allotment Advice

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

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

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(1)(c) 35 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. that the income was surrendered on the basis of some documents on which the name of some persons and some amount is mentioned. The Learned Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry regarding those documents whether the person the name of which mentioned is an existing person or the amount mentioned

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c) had been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore no penalty could be levied. (ii) Poonam Mable Pvt Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 157 TTJ 59 (Jodh) (iIi) CIT Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation