DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

42,199/- and Rs. 1,20,43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

42,199/- and Rs. 1,20,43,429/- for the assessment years 2010-11, 11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c).' 13. The effect of this insertion is that when an amount is added or disallowed in an assessment and the order contains a direction Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c).' 13. The effect of this insertion is that when an amount is added or disallowed in an assessment and the order contains a direction Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

42-46) and Abhimanyu Singh vs. ITO in ITA No. 187/JP/2013 dated 21.06.2016 (DPB 47-60) which have taken a similar view. 2.2.5.Also kindly refer Parinee Developers Pvt ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 174 TTJ 0137 (Mum), Satyananda Achariya Biswas vs. DCIT (2015) 45 CCH 0328 (KolTrib), Uma Shankar Agarwal vs. DCIT (2016) 46 CCH 57 (koltrib), Shri Samson Perinchery

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

42 Taxmann.com 54/221 Taxman 21 (Mag) (Guj) and Bharatkumar G. Rajni Vs. DCIT (2013) reported in 40 taxmann.com 344 (Guj). Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, concealment of income came to be established and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been rightly levied upon the assessee. Accordingly AO’s action

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of the above judgment we are unable to affirm the action of the authorities below. As the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice 274 of the Act is not inconformity with the requirement of the law. Thus, the Penalty order

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

42,490/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 27th June, 2018 has 3 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. levied the penalty

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

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

42,080/- which was declared by the assessee in the return of income filed on 01.02.2016 in response to notice under section 153A on 27.01.2016. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) has reduced the levy of penalty under section 271AAB from 30% to 10%. Hence both the assessee

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

42,379/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,23,519/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

42,067/- on account of 3 Shri Ritesh Agarwal, Jaipur. disallowance of interest as part of the cost of the assets while computing long term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act against the surrendered amount of Rs. 7,22,00,000/- by issuing show cause notice dated 28th March

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

42,21,625/- vide order dated 18/5/2018. 3. The assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the income surrendered by the assessee in the course of search and seizure action was already disclosed in the return of income filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI AJAY AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

42,45,088/- levied by the A.O. under explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the penalty by placing reliance on the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Hon’ble ITAT

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings. ii) Recently Hon’ble ITAT in the case Neha Sharma v/s ITO, Ward 2(3), Jaipur in ITA No. 781/JP/2017 for AY 2007-08 vide order dated 08/03/2019 held that (PB Page 172-181) :- “15. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings. ii) Recently Hon’ble ITAT in the case Neha Sharma v/s ITO, Ward 2(3), Jaipur in ITA No. 781/JP/2017 for AY 2007-08 vide order dated 08/03/2019 held that (PB Page 172-181) :- “15. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

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)

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

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)

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits