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

set aside”.\nThe Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Virendra M. Shanklesha,\nMumbai v. Assessee (ITA No. 6431 to 6433/Mum/2010) held as under:\n\"5.3 It is clear from the record that the additional income admitted in the return\nfiled u/s 153A is not because of some bogus or an absolutely wrong claim; but\nbecause of some error

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or Smt. Shipra Jain & Sh. Sapna Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

set up new plant and\nmachinery-AO rejected same claim and also levied penalty @\n300% u/s 271(1)(c)—CIT(A) dismissed claim of deduction u/s 80-\nIA, however cancelled penalty-Tribunal upheld order of\nCIT(A)—Held, unit in question at Kundaim Industrial Estate was\nnew industrial undertaking, manufacturing much wider range of\nproducts-Assessee was under bona-fide

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

set-aside to the AO. 17 Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal vs DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer 4. Immunity u/s 271AAA(2) available: Alternatively, If it is held that the present matter attracted the provisions of Sec. 271AAA, the assessee shall be entitled to immunity granted u/s 271AAA(2) for the simple reason that all the conditions laid there under stood fulfilled

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

set aside the penalty and not the assessment order which still exists. The penalty proceedings have been emanated from the assessment order which stands as on date. Since the very initiation of the penalty proceedings in the assessment order itself is defective and unlawful there was no case for levy of any penalty leave aside @ 10% or 30%. Thus

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

set aside the penalty and not the assessment order which still exists. The penalty proceedings have been emanated from the assessment order which stands as on date. Since the very initiation of the penalty proceedings in the assessment order itself is defective and unlawful there was no case for levy of any penalty leave aside @ 10% or 30%. Thus

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment of particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case notice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads as under: “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)

set aside impugned penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no substantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether Special leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee].” 9 Supporting case laws u/s 271

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.

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of Act which has been issued in printedletter without ticking / marking the applicable clause / without striking-off the irrelevant limb which reveals that the penalty was initiated as well as levied for both the charges. It is apparent that if AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, was satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

set) 2. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAB(1A) for 22-27 A.Y. 12-13 to A.Y. 17-18. 3. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) for A.Y. 28-32 12-13 to A.Y. 16-17. 4. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAC(1) for 33 A.Y. 18-19. 5. Copies

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

set) 2. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAB(1A) for 22-27 A.Y. 12-13 to A.Y. 17-18. 3. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) for A.Y. 28-32 12-13 to A.Y. 16-17. 4. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAC(1) for 33 A.Y. 18-19. 5. Copies

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

set) 2. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAB(1A) for 22-27 A.Y. 12-13 to A.Y. 17-18. 3. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) for A.Y. 28-32 12-13 to A.Y. 16-17. 4. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAC(1) for 33 A.Y. 18-19. 5. Copies

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

set) 2. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAB(1A) for 22-27 A.Y. 12-13 to A.Y. 17-18. 3. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) for A.Y. 28-32 12-13 to A.Y. 16-17. 4. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAC(1) for 33 A.Y. 18-19. 5. Copies

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

set) 2. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAB(1A) for 22-27 A.Y. 12-13 to A.Y. 17-18. 3. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) for A.Y. 28-32 12-13 to A.Y. 16-17. 4. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAC(1) for 33 A.Y. 18-19. 5. Copies

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

set) 2. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAB(1A) for 22-27 A.Y. 12-13 to A.Y. 17-18. 3. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) for A.Y. 28-32 12-13 to A.Y. 16-17. 4. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAC(1) for 33 A.Y. 18-19. 5. Copies

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

set) 2. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAB(1A) for 22-27 A.Y. 12-13 to A.Y. 17-18. 3. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) for A.Y. 28-32 12-13 to A.Y. 16-17. 4. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAC(1) for 33 A.Y. 18-19. 5. Copies

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

set) 2. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAB(1A) for 22-27 A.Y. 12-13 to A.Y. 17-18. 3. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) for A.Y. 28-32 12-13 to A.Y. 16-17. 4. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAC(1) for 33 A.Y. 18-19. 5. Copies

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

set) 2. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAB(1A) for 22-27 A.Y. 12-13 to A.Y. 17-18. 3. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271(1)(c) for A.Y. 28-32 12-13 to A.Y. 16-17. 4. Copies of show cause notices issued u/s 274/271AAC(1) for 33 A.Y. 18-19. 5. Copies