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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ex consequenti, the impugned order is set aside and the penalty is deleted.” Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT 44. In the present case, the assessee has disclosed all material facts and provided requisite information in Form 3CEB disclosing the international transactions relating to advancing loans to its AEs and has submitted detailed transfer

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ex consequenti, the impugned order is set aside and the penalty is deleted.” Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT 44. In the present case, the assessee has disclosed all material facts and provided requisite information in Form 3CEB disclosing the international transactions relating to advancing loans to its AEs and has submitted detailed transfer

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

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

u/s 132(4) and offered in the return of income, however the same cannot be said to qualify as an undisclosed income in the context of section 271AAB read with the explanation thereto and penalty so levied thereon deserved to be set-aside.” 48. Though the said decision has been rendered in context of section 271AAB, we believe that

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

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

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

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

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)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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

48,24,560/-, the same as the returned income which includes the undisclosed income of Rs 1,40,41,210/- 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

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

48,000/- u/s 143(3)/147 on dt. 06.09.2017. However in the assessment order the ld. AO has not initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271D & 271E nor made any observation that the amount taken in cash and repayment in cash of unsecured loan in contravention of provision of Sec. 269SS and 2769T . However the ld. Add. CIT in the penalty

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

ANUJ MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

48,920/- was declared including the surrendered income. The AO accepted the returned income while framing the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, the AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 70,10,000/- under section 271AAB of the Act with reference to the surrendered income

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that