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

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

8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found

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)

penalty. This intention is also supported by the further fact that the ROI filed u/s 153A is deemed to be an ROI filed u/s 139(1) and all the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. Looking from this angle in absence of any difference in the returned and assessed income. 8. Supporting case laws u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s

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

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

8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section\n271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that\neverything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document,\nwhere the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such\nparticulars are found

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)

8) Where Tribunal relying on decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Grinning Factory 359 ITR 565, allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued by AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

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

8)\nWhere Tribunal relying on decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in\ncase of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Grinning Factory 359 ITR 565, allowed appeal of\nassessee holding that notice issued by AO u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did\nnot specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

8) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO\nLTD\nHIGH COURT OF MUMBAI\n(2014) 110 DTR 0324 (Bom), (2014) 272 CTR 0336\n(Bom), (2014) 366 ITR 0502\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Justification of imposition of penalty-\nDeletion of Held, tribunal deleted penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on\nfindings of fact that merely because assessee raised

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)

u/s 271AAB(1A)(b) of the I.T. Act, however in the show cause notice specific section was not mentioned. Different clauses of Section 271AAB(1A) prescribe different type of defaults and even the penalties are leviable at differing rates. As per the statutory provisions related to levy of penalties under the Income Tax Act, as explained

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 271AAB(1A)(b) of the I.T.Act , however in the show cause notice specific section was not mentioned. Different clauses of Section 271AAB(1A) prescribe different type of defaults and even the penalties are leviable at differing rates. As per the statutory provisions related to levy of penalties under the Income Tax Act, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme

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) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but, in penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8

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)

271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act without specifying the specific default of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T.Act, i.e either default of clause (a) or default of clause (b) of the said sub section. Prior to the imposition of penalty another stereotyped show cause notice dated 09/02/2022 was issued by the Assessing Officer simply stating 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 appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause notice 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) to the assessee for the same addition. 5. Assessee company

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)

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause notice 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) to the assessee for the same addition. 5. Assessee company

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

u/s 271 (1) (c) were initiated against you during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2008-09 and notice was already served on you. It is submitted any notice issued under section 274, read with Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should specify under which limb of Section 271

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

8-9)\n6.2 In the case of CIT v/s Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Limited (2013) 85 CCH\n0510 (Chatt) (DC 1-2), it was held that:\n“Penalty-Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)-Concealment of income-Addition of share\napplication money-Assessee, a company manufacturing iron and steel re-rolled\nproducts filed its return showing loss-Subsequently, notice u/s

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

8-9)\n6.2 In the case of CIT v/s Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Limited (2013) 85 CCH\n0510 (Chatt) (DC 1-2), it was held that:\n“Penalty-Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)-Concealment of income-Addition of share\napplication money-Assessee, a company manufacturing iron and steel re-rolled\nproducts filed its return showing loss-Subsequently, notice u/s

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

8-9)\n6.2 In the case of CIT v/s Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Limited (2013) 85 CCH\n0510 (Chatt) (DC 1-2), it was held that:\n“Penalty-Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)-Concealment of income-Addition of share\napplication money-Assessee, a company manufacturing iron and steel re-rolled\nproducts filed its return showing loss-Subsequently, notice u/s

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

8-9)\n6.2 In the case of CIT v/s Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Limited (2013) 85 CCH\n0510 (Chatt) (DC 1-2), it was held that:\n“Penalty-Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)-Concealment of income-Addition of share\napplication money-Assessee, a company manufacturing iron and steel re-rolled\nproducts filed its return showing loss-Subsequently, notice u/s

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

8-9)\n6.2 In the case of CIT v/s Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Limited (2013) 85 CCH\n0510 (Chatt) (DC 1-2), it was held that:\n“Penalty-Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)-Concealment of income-Addition of share\napplication money-Assessee, a company manufacturing iron and steel re-rolled\nproducts filed its return showing loss-Subsequently, notice u/s