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

271(1)(c) of the IT Act have been initiated separately. It is\nworthwhile to mention that along with the assessment order, notice u/s 274 r.w.s\n271(1)(c) dt. 31.12.2025 (PB 17) is issued. The details of the relevant narration are\nreproduced as under:-\n\nFile No. 10\nOffice of:ACIT, Cir-6, JPR\nDated: 31-12-2015\nPAN

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)

u/s 271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the specific default committed by the appellant rendering the appellant liable to penalty under Income Tax Act. 4.2 Ld CIT(A) also erred in law in not quashing the patently illegal penalty order when the final show cause notice issued

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,404/-. The directions of the Pr. CIT-1 are scanned below: - The perusal of the aforesaid concluding para of the order u/s 263 passed by PCIT-1 reveals the following: - (i) The Learned Assessing Officer has passed the penalty order without application of mind and applied the wrong provisions/clause of section 271AAB. (ii) The penalty order has been passed

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,404/-. The directions of the Pr. CIT-1 are scanned below: - The perusal of the aforesaid concluding para of the order u/s 263 passed by PCIT-1 reveals the following: - (i) The Ld. Assessing Officer has passed the penalty order without application of mind and applied the wrong provisions/clause of section 271AAB. (ii) The penalty order has been passed

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be imposed. 3.2. In exactly identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chandrapal Bagga vs. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal &Anr. (2003) 261 ITR 67 (Raj) has held- 11 When the assessee has disclosed the transaction which is the basis for capital gains tax and though wrongly claimed exemption from

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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

56,420/- which includes surrendered income of Rs. 3,85,39,399/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration

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

56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section\n275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of\npenalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing\nsection, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing\nthe return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance

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

u/s 271D/E and also\nheld that the period of limitation reckoned from the date of assessment order. The\nrelevant finding of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder: -\n19. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Tribunal has held the penalty\norders to be barred by time in terms of section 275(1)(c).\n20. The revenue contends that

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

penalty proceedings were initiated in terms of section 271 or\nsection 273 which were the principal provisions for imposing penalty under\nChapter XXI. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings was linked with\nassessment proceedings and the orders in such assessments were subject to\nappeal, the findings in such proceedings ordinarily became the foundation for\ninitiating proceedings for penalty and remained

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

penalty under section 275 as\noriginally enacted was directly linked with the completion of proceedings in the\ncourse of which the penalty proceedings were initiated in terms of section 271 or\nsection 273 which were the principal provisions for imposing penalty under\nChapter XXI. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings was linked with\nassessment proceedings and the orders in such

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

56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275\nof the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty\nproceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section,\npenalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the\nreturn or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance

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

penalty proceedings\".\n(b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of\nrevision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year

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

section 263, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed;\n(c)\nin any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the\nproceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has\nbeen initiated, are completed, or six months from

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

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)

56 CCH 0447 DelTrib It has been held “34. On a perusal of the assessment order in the quantum proceedings, the order of the first appellate authority deciding the quantum additions and also the order of the JCIT levying penalty u/s 271D of the Act, we find that the assessment order as well as the order of the JCIT

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

u/s 271D/E and also\nheld that the period of limitation reckoned from the date of assessment order. The\nrelevant finding of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder: -\n19. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Tribunal has held the penalty\norders to be barred by time in terms of section 275(1)(c).\n20. The revenue contends that