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

c) it would be the date on which the\nAO wrote a letter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true\nthat the ACIT had the discretion whether or not to issue the SCN, if he did decide to\nissue a SCN, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter

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

c) it would be the date on which the\nAO wrote a letter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true\nthat the ACIT had the discretion whether or not to issue the SCN, if he did decide to\nissue a SCN, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter

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

c) it would be the date on which the\nAO wrote a letter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true\nthat the ACIT had the discretion whether or not to issue the SCN, if he did decide to\nissue a SCN, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter

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

section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed

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

c) it would be the date on which the\nAO wrote a letter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true\nthat the ACIT had the discretion whether or not to issue the SCN, if he did decide to\nissue a SCN, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter

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

c) it would be the date on which the\nAO wrote a letter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true\nthat the ACIT had the discretion whether or not to issue the SCN, if he did decide to\nissue a SCN, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter

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)

c) it would be the date on which the AO wrote a letter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true that the ACIT had the discretion whether or not to issue the SCN, if he did decide to issue a SCN, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice dated 21.12.2018 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section 271AAB(1)(a)/271AAB(1)(c) should not be initiated against the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of Rs. 33,00,000/- vide penalty order

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— 16 M/s Rambhajo’s vs. ACIT (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which

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

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

275 of the IT Act whereas the penalty under section 271AAB has to be imposed only when the income disclosed by the assessee falls in the ambit of undisclosed income as defined under section 271AAB of the Act. The definition of undisclosed income contemplates various forms and the primary condition is that the income of the specified previous

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

275(1), then the relevant dates would be: a) either on or by 31.03.2008, or b) on or by 31.03.2011, whichever is later. Hence, the order of penalty ,as far as addition of Rs. 2,79,000/- and of Rs. 10,05,301/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was concerned, should have been passed, in any case

SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

68,700/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 10.00 lacs. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the of the Act at the returned income. However, the AO held that income of Rs. 10.00 lacs is assessable u/s 69 of the Act and therefore, the same is taxable

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

275(1)(C) and it cannot be linked with 27ID because section 271 D is independent section where 1st limb of section in not applicable by the assessee and whereas second limb of section is applicable in 13 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT assessee case in case penalty was initiated on 07.08.2019 and from