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

9: (i) The assessee has taken the plea that alleged loans were taken as\nincome and therefore, the same cannot be treated as loan repaid for the purpose\nof penalty u/s 271E of the Act is not acceptable as the assessee company has\nitself considering penalty proceeding as separate proceedings and therefore, the\nplea of the additions made

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

9: (i) The assessee has taken the plea that alleged loans were taken as\nincome and therefore, the same cannot be treated as loan repaid for the purpose\nof penalty u/s 271E of the Act is not acceptable as the assessee company has\nitself considering penalty proceeding as separate proceedings and therefore, the\nplea of the additions made

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

9: (i) The assessee has taken the plea that alleged loans were taken as\nincome and therefore, the same cannot be treated as loan repaid for the purpose\nof penalty u/s 271E of the Act is not acceptable as the assessee company has\nitself considering penalty proceeding as separate proceedings and therefore, the\nplea of the additions made

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

9) TMI 83 (Copy of judgement is at case law PB Page 163 to 179). The\nfinding of Hon'ble ITAT as given on this issue is as under: -\n“Since, we have binding precedent over the other High Court decision cited by the\nrevenue and we are also of the considered view that our High Court view is further

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

9: (i) The assessee has taken the plea that alleged loans were taken as\nincome and therefore, the same cannot be treated as loan repaid for the purpose\nof penalty u/s 271E of the Act is not acceptable as the assessee company has\nitself considering penalty proceeding as separate proceedings and therefore, the\nplea of the additions made

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

9: (i) The assessee has taken the plea that alleged loans were taken as\nincome and therefore, the same cannot be treated as loan repaid for the purpose\nof penalty u/s 271E of the Act is not acceptable as the assessee company has\nitself considering penalty proceeding as separate proceedings and therefore, the\nplea of the additions made

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

9: (i) The assessee has taken the plea that alleged loans were taken as\nincome and therefore, the same cannot be treated as loan repaid for the purpose\nof penalty u/s 271E of the Act is not acceptable as the assessee company has\nitself considering penalty proceeding as separate proceedings and therefore, the\nplea of the additions made

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)

9: (i) The assessee has taken the plea that alleged loans were taken as income and therefore, the same cannot be treated as loan repaid for the purpose of penalty u/s 271E of the Act is not acceptable as the assessee company has itself considering penalty proceeding as separate proceedings and therefore, the plea of the additions made

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

9: (i) The assessee has taken the plea that alleged loans were taken as\nincome and therefore, the same cannot be treated as loan repaid for the purpose\nof penalty u/s 271E of the Act is not acceptable as the assessee company has\nitself considering penalty proceeding as separate proceedings and therefore, the\nplea of the additions made

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

9: (i) The assessee has taken the plea that alleged loans were taken as\nincome and therefore, the same cannot be treated as loan repaid for the purpose\nof penalty u/s 271E of the Act is not acceptable as the assessee company has\nitself considering penalty proceeding as separate proceedings and therefore, the\nplea of the additions made

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)

9: (i) The assessee has taken the plea that alleged loans were taken as income and therefore, the same cannot be treated as loan repaid for the purpose of penalty u/s 271E of the Act is not acceptable as the assessee company has itself considering penalty proceeding as separate proceedings and therefore, the plea of the additions made

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice u/s 271\n(1) (c) for imposing of penalty without specifying the limb for reasons to impose\npenalty whether for concealment of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of\nincome is not as per law and assessing officer did not have any jurisdiction to\nimpose penalty u/s 271 (1

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

u/s 274 of the Act\nshould specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment\nof particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case\nnotice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads\nas under: -\n\"Penalty Notice Under Section 274. Read with Section 271

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

u/s 274 of the Act\nshould specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment\nof particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case\nnotice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads\nas under: -\n“Penalty Notice Under Section 274. Read with Section 271

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)

9 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. Accordingly as there is no adverse impact on the tax liability due to the change of head of income in the present case, considering the explanation 4 in sub section (1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect. Further, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case has been levied on the basis that the Appellant has not shown the long term capital gain while filing the "Original return of income". 4.3. The Appellant at this juncture, the Appellant would like to draw your attention towards the provisions of S.148 of the Act, which

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

9. In a result the appeal is dismissed. Finding of ld. CIT(A) for penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act 4. DECISION: I have gone through and duly considered the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, penalty order of the AO and other facts of the case available on the record. 4.1. During the assessment proceedings

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

9. In a result the appeal is dismissed. Finding of ld. CIT(A) for penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act 4. DECISION: I have gone through and duly considered the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, penalty order of the AO and other facts of the case available on the record. 4.1. During the assessment proceedings