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 271(1)(c) and also on merits. The Ld.\nCIT(A), however, without deciding the legal ground of assessee,confirmed the levy\n\n19\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\n\nof penalty by applying Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) by holding that the\namount of Rs.77

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) and also on merits. The Ld. CIT(A), however, without deciding the legal ground of assessee,confirmed the levy RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR of penalty by applying Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) by holding that the amount of Rs.77,61

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

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), it must be proved that the assessee has\nconsciously made the concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of his\nincome. The said principle has been reiterated in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs.\nCIT (2007) 207 CTR (SC) 733: (2007) 289 ITR 83 (SC) held that:\n“24. Sec.271 of the Act is a penal provision

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), it must be proved that the assessee has\nconsciously made the concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of his\nincome. The said principle has been reiterated in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs.\nCIT (2007) 207 CTR (SC) 733: (2007) 289 ITR 83 (SC) held that:\n“24. Sec.271 of the Act is a penal provision

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), it must be proved that the assessee has\nconsciously made the concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of his\nincome. The said principle has been reiterated in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs.\nCIT (2007) 207 CTR (SC) 733: (2007) 289 ITR 83 (SC) held that:\n“24. Sec.271 of the Act is a penal provision

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), it must be proved that the assessee has\nconsciously made the concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of his\nincome. The said principle has been reiterated in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs.\nCIT (2007) 207 CTR (SC) 733: (2007) 289 ITR 83 (SC) held that:\n“24. Sec.271 of the Act is a penal provision

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), it must be proved that the assessee has\nconsciously made the concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of his\nincome. The said principle has been reiterated in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs.\nCIT (2007) 207 CTR (SC) 733: (2007) 289 ITR 83 (SC) held that:\n“24. Sec.271 of the Act is a penal provision

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)

u/s 271(1)(c), on the trading additions and commission payment sustained in the quantum proceedings of Rs. 4,42,953, worked out on estimate basis. 5 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 1.2. During the course of quantum proceedings, before the lower authorities, all the details of the purchases made by the assessee firm from the parties, alleged

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer ought to have been recorded his satisfaction. However, Ld. AO has failed to do so. The same is in violation of CBDT Circular no. 09/DV/2016 dated 26.04.2016 advising Assessing Officer to make a reference

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

61,216/-. In appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of 25% on unverifiable/bogus purchases observing that the assessee is involved in activities of taking accommodation entries in order to reduce the profitability. It is further noted that the AO vide his order dated 28-08- 2013 imposed the penalty of ₹ 1,72,981/- u/s 271

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

61,216/-. In appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of 25% on unverifiable/bogus purchases observing that the assessee is involved in activities of taking accommodation entries in order to reduce the profitability. It is further noted that the AO vide his order dated 28-08- 2013 imposed the penalty of ₹ 1,72,981/- u/s 271

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

271(1)(c) and Section 271F in respect of the addition made under Section 69A for alleged concealment of income. 20. In light of the above facts and legal contentions, the Appellant, with utmost humility and respect, prays before this Hon’ble Tribunal to graciously allow the present appeal in the interest of substantial justice and equity. It is submitted

SHRI OM PRAKASH MODI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 196/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Modi, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar Central Circle-2, (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acfpm 8683 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 01/01/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271Aab Imposed At Rs. 3,75,00,000/-, Arbitrarily, Thus The Order So Passed Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Has Duly Disclosed In The Statements U/S 132(4) & The Mode & Manner Was Also Explained, Further Due Tax Was Also Paid, Therefore, The Penalty Of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- So Levied Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed On Additional Income Of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- Duly Offered

61-63) Unexplained investment – Scope of section 69 – ITO is not obliged to treat source of investment as income whenever explanation regarding it is not satisfactory – Word “MAY” in section 69 cannot be interpreted to mean “SHALL” – Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 69. This judgement, though is in context of sec. 69, but the ratio decided by hon’ble court

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 143(2) was issued on 18.10.2010 i.e. only after 5 months. Therefore, it cannot be said that revised return was filed voluntarily by assessee. 2.3.2 Further, Assessing Officer in assessment order initiated penalty by specifically mentioning that assessee has concealed income and finally imposed penalty on concealment of income. This shows the clear finding on Assessing Officer's part

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Section 263 of the Act does not give any power to PCIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to be initiated or not. Where the Commissioner finds while examining the records of an assessment order that AO has not initiated penalty proceedings, he cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

61 [Assessing] Officer to compute his total income in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Every person carrying on business or profession [not being a profession referred to in sub-section (1)] shall,— (i ) if his income from business or profession exceeds 62[one lakh twenty] thousand rupees or his total sales, turnover or gross receipts