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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted

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

6. In view of above stated facts and legal position, the assessee under consideration is, clearly liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed upon him as per following computation:- Total undisclosed/concealed income liable to penalty Rs. 1,34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty

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

6. In view of above stated facts and legal position, the assessee under consideration is, clearly liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed upon him as per following computation:- Total undisclosed/concealed income liable to penalty Rs. 1,34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

43,500/- for AY 2007-08, AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 respectively. Accepting the income declared in the returns of income filed u/s 153A, the AO completed the assessments without making any addition, whatsoever. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the assessment so made. On the other hand, the AO initiated penalty u/s

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 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

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

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

6 of the assessment order, the AO has stated that a notice u/s 271(1)(c) is being issued. Therefore, we find that the penalty proceedings have been initiated qua the undisclosed income which has been admitted by the assessee during the course of search in his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and which has subsequently been reported

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

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

6. In view of above stated facts and legal position, the assessee under consideration is, clearly liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed upon him as per following computation:- Smt. Shipra Jain & Sh. Sapna Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur Total undisclosed/concealed income liable to penalty Rs. 1,34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable

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

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

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

43,639/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,42,490/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. 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 27th June

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 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