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

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

80,00,000/-\nwhich was admitted during the course of survey. Thus it cannot be said that the\nassessee had furnished \"inaccurate particulars of income\" which is not disputed by\nthe Assessing Officer.\n6. 1. Further as per Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable\nsince the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return

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)

80,00,000/-. However the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on the balance disputed income of Rs. 4,08,097/-. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), who partly deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus the grounds raised by the Revenue

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

80-IA and disallowance u/s 14A. Thereafter on the last page of the\nassessment order. it is mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT\nAct have been initiated separately. It is pertinent to mention that along with the\nassessment order, notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dt.07.10.2016(PB 16) is issued.\nThe details

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)

80-IA and disallowance u/s 14A. Thereafter on the last page of the assessment order, it is mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act have been initiated separately. It is worthwhile to mention that along with the assessment order, notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dt. 31.12.2025 (PB 17) is issued. The details

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 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

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271AAA. Intention of the legislative in incorporating the provisions contained u/s 271AA effective during the period 1st June, 2007 to 1st July, 2012 is to provide general amnesty in search and seizure cases, and the case of the assessee undisputedly falls u/s 271AAA and cannot be dealt with u/s 271(1)(c) by any stretch of imagination even

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)

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

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

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

271(1)(c), is the basis of such statements and whether there are any tangible material by way of any entry in books of accounts, documents or transactions which have been found during the course of search and which support and corroborates such statements. 41. In the assessee’s statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 19.12.2014, in question

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

u/s 80-IB on DEPB, VKUY, VKGUY provision and Duty Draw Back 3 NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS VS ACIT, CIRCLE- JUHNJHUNU Provision. Hence, the provisions of Section 271(1)© of the Act are applicable in this case and it is a fit case to levy of penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

80,031/- levied by the AO @ 30% of the undisclosed income under clause 1(c) of section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act to Rs. 91,26,677/- under clause 1(a) of that section Smt. Aparna Agarwal, Kota. despite the fact that manner of earning of undisclosed income was not disclosed by the assessee. 2. Before

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)

80 (Delhi)/[2015] 378 ITR 614 (Delhi)[13-10-2015] held as under:- “10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non- compliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated

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)

80 (Delhi)/[2015] 378 ITR 614 (Delhi)[13-10-2015] held as under:- “10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non- compliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

80,51,650/- which includes surrendered income of Rs. 10,78,04,733/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. In response to notice under section 153A of the IT Act, the assessee furnished his return of income on 03.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 11,98,51,650/- which includes the income of Rs. 10,96,04,733/- admitted

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

80,050/- levied by Ld AO u/s 271E of I. Tax Act by\nholding that the penalty order passed on 28.08.2023 is beyond the date of limitation.\nHowever, in addition to or/and in alternative, the contentions of the assessee are as\nunder\n1.1\nIn the assessment order, no satisfaction was recorded for initiation of penalty u/s\n271E

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

80,050/- levied by Ld AO u/s 271E of I. Tax Act by\nholding that the penalty order passed on 28.08.2023 is beyond the date of limitation.\nHowever, in addition to or/and in alternative, the contentions of the assessee are as\nunder\n1.1\nIn the assessment order, no satisfaction was recorded for initiation of penalty u/s\n271E

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. Date : 15-05-2017. To, Name M/s./Shri/Smt. Ram Das Sonkia Address Pitaliyon Ka Chowk, Johari Bazar, Jaipur PAN AJTPS 9679 M Whereas in the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16 penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 274 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB

SHRI GOPAL DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. Date : 15-05-2017. To, Name M/s/Shri/Smt. Gopal Das Sonkia Address 365, Sonkia Bhawan, SMS Highway, Jaipur. PAN BJQPS 9676 A Whereas in the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16 penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 274 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB