GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not\nsustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above\ngrounds of appeal at the time of hearing.\"\n3.\nWe find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days\neach

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)

271A : Failed to keep, maintain, or retain books of accounts, documents etc. as required u/s 44AA. 271B : Failed to get the accounts audited or obtain audit report as required under section 44AB or furnish such report alongwith return under section 139(1) or in response to notice under section 142(1)(i). 271C : Failed to deduct tax at source, wholly

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. INDU RATHORE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

271A, 271B and 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initiation of penalty proceedings is only consequential in nature. Since, full relief is given on quantum addition, no cause of action arises for deciding these grounds. Hence, these grounds are treated as dismissed.’’ 2.3 During the courseof hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that

GOVIND SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward 7(2), Jaipur. 2 Govind Saini vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2237511/- on account of amount received