JAGDISH CHANDRA SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS)—Accordingly, six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30th June, 2010—Hence, the order imposing penalty under s. 271C could have been passed on or before 30th June, 2010— Therefore, order levying penalty under s. 271C passed by the Addl. CIT on 18th

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

269T and section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The A.O. has mentioned in the letter that audit is to be carried out in view of the provisions of Rule 14A. One has to read entire letter together and from this letter one cannot infer that the A.O. referred the matter for special audit for getting the books of accounts

MAHAVEER OIL DISTRIBUTORS,SHAHPURA JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD BEHROR, BEHROR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS section as 194C instead of section 194A. I find that this is additional ground of appeal raised by the appellant during remand proceedings. However, since the omission to include this ground in the form of appeal is not willful or unreasonable, the additional ground of appeal is admitted. I have considered the facts of the case, submission filed

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS and the same has been duly deducted and paid. It is worthy to note that the income of Smt. Reshma Morani was under highest tax bracket (copy of computation of total income and ITR V are enclosed (placed on 1-5 of paper book)), this proves that there was no intention to save income tax liability. 5 M/s Morani

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS on the payments. Despite that he took a chance because had the case not selected for scrutiny, he would have reduced tax liability. It cannot be the case of the assessee that there was any doubt about the inadmissibility of the claim. In view of the facts that out rightly inadmissible claims were made by the appellant

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

269T, 271D, 271E, 275 (1) (c) ] Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that; under section 275 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the starting point of “initiation” of penalty proceedings, would be the date on which the Assessing Officer wrote a letter to the Additional Commissioner recommending the issuance of the notice. Though the Additional

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

269T to the Additional/Joint CIT separately. Therefore, the 73 entries have been dropped for purpose of addition as they do not violate the provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The remaining 178 entries were not satisfactorily explained by the assessee and no evidence was provided to substantiate the claim that earlier the payments have been made

MORANI MOTORAS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the ground no

TDS in spite of expenses below threshold limit, which is unjustified and liable to be deleted.” 3 Morani Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2. The appeal was numbered as ITA No. 434/JP/2018 and this appeal was decided by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 28.02.2020. 3. Against that order the assessee moved Misc. Application (MA) which was numbered