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)

section 271(1)(c) and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income for an amount of Rs. 1,34,14,976/-. 5

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

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

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 the retraction of the surrendered income

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

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

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 the retraction of the surrendered income

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground

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

u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1) dated | 16 | Both\n| | 07-10-2016\n| 4. | Copy of penalty notice ated 14-03-2019 | 17 | Both\n| 5. | Copy of assessee's reply dated 19-03-2019 in | 18-24 | Both\n| | response to above notice\n| 6. | Copy of ITAT order dated 10-04-2018 in assessee's | 25-94 | Both

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.

section 271(1)(c), the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs 1,14,75,790/- For that reason, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed on the furnishing

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

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 read with section 274 of the IT Act without specifying the default prescribed under section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In compliance to the said penalty notice, the assessee submitted explanation but the same could not find favour with the AO and he holding that the assessee is liable for imposition of penalty under section 271AAB

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 MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable. 8. The AO however, imposed penalty @ 120% on the tax on alleged concealed income of Rs.5,92,340/- by holding that as per sub-section (3) of section 132A, provisions of sub-section (4A) to (14) of section 132(1) shall apply and therefore in Explanation 5

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.

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 4. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated on concealment of particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 1,16,62,560/- being the additional income disclosed in the return of income filed u/s 153A and which was not declared in the return of income filed u/s

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.

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 4. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated on concealment of particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 1,16,62,560/- being the additional income disclosed in the return of income filed u/s 153A and which was not declared in the return of income filed u/s

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.

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 4. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated on concealment of particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 1,16,62,560/- being the additional income disclosed in the return of income filed u/s 153A and which was not declared in the return of income filed u/s

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the return that has to be looked at is the one filed u/s 139(5) and sec. 153A and section

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

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Since common issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this consolidated order. Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT 2. For the purpose of present discussions, we take the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 730/JP/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 as a lead case with

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

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Since common issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this consolidated order. Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT 2. For the purpose of present discussions, we take the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 730/JP/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 as a lead case with

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

5. In our case, search was conducted on dated 13.10.2010 and a penalty for all the years were imposed u/s 271(1)(c). In the cited case, search was conducted dated 10.02.2009 and penalty was imposed for AY 2008-09 u/s 271(1)(c). Thus, in both the cases penalty were imposed in the years other than the year

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

U/s 274 he simply has ticked in prescribed proforma concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income without deleting either limb of penalty even he has not put and in the notice itself 5 Narayana Heights & Tower. between two limbs. The amended provisions of Sub-section (1B) of Section 271