CIT v. Ajanta Dyeing & Printing Mills

Rajendra Meena, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

…CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) 2. CIT vs. Yasundara Devi (2015) 66 (II)ITCL 578 (Chennai Tribunal). 3. DCIT vs. Triumalaraju Trinadhu Raju (2016) 69(II) ITCL 342 (Chennai Tribunal). 4. CIT vs. Ajanta Dyeing & Printing Mills (2003) 264 ITR 505 (Raj.) 5. Sudha Agro Oil & Chemical Industries vs. Addl. CIT (2016) Tax Publisher (DT) 2783 Vishakhapatnam Tribunal I direct to delete the penalty of Rs. 2.00 lacs, Rs. 80,000/- , Rs. 2.05 lacs and Rs. 1.30 lacs for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 13 Shri Rajendra Meena. vs. JCIT, Central Range, Jaipur and 2008-09 respectively…

Jitendra Meena, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…- आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 816 & 1002/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2008-09 cuke Shri Jitendra Meena The JCIT Vs. 855, Aakron Ka Rasta Central Range Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFZPM 1966 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri S.K. Gogra, CA and Shri S.S. Gogra, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT -…

Narayanji Spices & Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat Against The Order Of The Cit Which Was Passed By Him As Single Order. The Appellant In Form No. 36 In Column No. 3 Mentioned The Reference Of Appeal For Three Years. Subsequently, It Was Realized By The Appellant That The Three Appeals Should Have Been Filed Before The Hon'Ble

…CIT vs. Idhayan Publication Ltd. (2006) Tax Publisher (DT) 1251-Madras High Court 13 M/s. Naryanji Enclave (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT, Central Range, Jaipur 4. CIT vs. Yesodha (2015) 66 (II) ITCL 578 (Chennai Tribunal) 5. CIT vs. Ajana Dyeing & Printing Mills (2003) 264 ITR 505 (Raj) 6. Sudha Agro & Chemical Industries vs. Addl. CIT (2016) – Tax Publisher (DT) 2783 ( Vishakhapatnam Tribunal ) I direct to delete the penalty of Rs. 1.20 lacs (A.Y. 2007-08), Rs. 1.60 lacs (A.Y. 2008-09) and Rs. 55,000 (A.Y. 2010-11) respectively sustained by the ld. CIT(A) in assessee's case for the assessment years (supra). Thus these th…

Narayanji Gajakwale Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…e assessee namely :- 1. Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2002) Tax Publisher (DT) 733 – Hyderabad Tribunal. – 2. CIT vs. Idhayan Publication Ltd. (2006) Tax Publisher (DT) 1251-Madras High Court 3. CIT vs. Ajana Dyeing & Printing Mills (2003) 264 ITR 505 (Raj) 4. Sudha Agro & Chemical Industries vs. Addl. CIT (2016) – Tax Publisher (DT) 2783 –( Vishakhapatnam Tribunal ) I direct to delete the penalty of Rs. 68,000/- and 60,000/- respectively u/s 271D of the Act sustained by the ld. CIT(A) in assessee's case for both the assessment years (supra). Thus the appeals of the assessee are allowed 9…

Narayanji Spices & Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…e assessee namely :- 1. Dillu Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2002) Tax Publisher (DT) 733 – Hyderabad Tribunal. – 2. CIT vs. Idhayan Publication Ltd. (2006) Tax Publisher (DT) 1251-Madras High Court 3. CIT vs. Ajana Dyeing & Printing Mills (2003) 264 ITR 505 (Raj) 4. Sudha Agro & Chemical Industries vs. Addl. CIT (2016) – Tax Publisher (DT) 2783 –( Vishakhapatnam Tribunal ) I direct to delete the penalty of Rs. 55,000/- u/s 271D of the Act sustained by the ld. CIT(A) in assessee's case for the assessment year under consideration. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed 3.1 Apropos assessee's…