VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

57,750/- and also made addition on account of commission of Rs.3,516/-. It is also noteworthy to mention that on appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the additions made by the AO. Subsequently, the AO passed penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) levying penalty of Rs.1,37,000/-for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

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

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)

57 CCH 0411 Rajkot Trib it has been held that Penalty— Failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS—Assessee filed return of income—During assessment proceeding, AO noted that assessee had KANHIYA LAL SAIN VS JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR received loan in cash on different dates from seven different persons—AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271D—AO held

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section. The action of the Id. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c).’’ 2.1 The Bench noticed in both the appeals that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

u/s 274 and the jurisdictional notice being vague, the consequent levy of penalty is illegal and deserves to be deleted in full. 8. In view of above facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceeding is void ab initio. For this purpose, reliance may be placed on the decision of Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Subhash

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

u/s 271E is clearly exigible in this case. Consequently, he ordered to levy penalty of Rs. 9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan other than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section 271E of the Act. 10 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

u/s 271E is clearly exigible in this case. Consequently, he ordered to levy penalty of Rs. 9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan other than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section 271E of the Act. 10 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

u/s 271E is clearly exigible in this case. Consequently, he ordered to levy penalty of Rs. 9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan other than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section 271E of the Act. 10 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 271E is clearly exigible in this case. Consequently, he ordered to levy penalty of Rs. 9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan other than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section 271E of the Act. 10 ITA Nos. 268, 270, 271

SH. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

57,261/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT act. He has further erred in ignoring the fact that addition of Rs. 8,32,568/- on which penalty has been levied is reduced to Rs. 1,49,008/- by AO vide its order dt. 24.06.2020 passed u/s 143(3)/250/254 of IT Act, 1961. 3. Under the facts & circumstances

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 271E is clearly exigible and consequently, he ordered\nto levy penalty of Rs.9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan\nother than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section\n271E of the Act.\nWhen the matter carried before the Id. CIT(A), considered the binding\nprecedent of our Rajasthan

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 271E is clearly exigible and consequently, he ordered\nto levy penalty of Rs.9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan\nother than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section\n271E of the Act.\nWhen the matter carried before the Id. CIT(A), considered the binding\nprecedent of our Rajasthan

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 271E is clearly exigible and consequently, he ordered\nto levy penalty of Rs.9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan\nother than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section\n271E of the Act.\nWhen the matter carried before the Id. CIT(A), considered the binding\nprecedent of our Rajasthan

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 21[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 271E is clearly exigible and consequently, he ordered\nto levy penalty of Rs.9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan\nother than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section\n271E of the Act.\nWhen the matter carried before the Id. CIT(A), considered the binding\nprecedent of our Rajasthan

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 271E is clearly exigible and consequently, he ordered\nto levy penalty of Rs.9,36,57,733/- i.e., equal to the amount of repayment of loan\nother than account payee cheque, is imposed on the assessee in terms of section\n271E of the Act.\nWhen the matter carried before the Id. CIT(A), considered the binding\nprecedent of our Rajasthan

MANJEET KAUR,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

57,003/-. During the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued u/s 142(1) dated 16.09.2021. Hence, Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) was initiated vide show cause notices u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29.09.2021 issued to the assessee for non compliance

AMAN GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from National E assessment Centre – Delhi on 11.03.2021. The Appellant has submittedsuitable reply mentioning that the subsidy received from government has already offered for Taxation in the next assessment year when all the conditions were satisfied related to subsidy and hence intention of the assesse was not to conceal