MUKESH PATHAK,TONK ROAD vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , ITO WARD6(2)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271F whereas the assessee was not required to file his return of income as per Section 39(1). 2 MUKESH PATHAK VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2. That the NFAC has further erred in law and facts in confirming tax Rs.311/- imposed (ITR accepted) by the AO but TDS

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)

271F Failed to furnish return of income as required by section139 before the end of the relevant assessment year. 272A(1) Refused or failed to: (a) Answer questions. (b) Sig. Statements. (c) Attene to give evidence or produce books of accounts etc. in compliance with summons under section 131(1). (d) Apply for allotment of permanent account number in term

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

271F, 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) may kindly be deleted. 4. The petitioner craves the right to add, alter or in any way amend the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing.” The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal and the same is reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 22.03.2019 passed

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

TDS Rs.\n22,23,578/-, TCS Rs.1,10,872/- and self assessment tax deposited on\n31.03.2018 at Rs.16,60,000/-. The assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.\n144B of the Act was completed by NFAC on 28.03.2022 wherein the\nincome was considered at Rs.1,10,04,980/- was assessed and thereby the\ninterest was not correctly calculated. The Id. AO rectified

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

TDS Rs.\n22,23,578/-, TCS Rs.1,10,872/- and self assessment tax deposited on\n31.03.2018 at Rs.16,60,000/-. The assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.\n144B of the Act was completed by NFAC on 28.03.2022 wherein the\nincome was considered at Rs.1,10,04,980/- was assessed and thereby the\ninterest was not correctly calculated. The Id. AO rectified

VISHNO MOTWANI,AJMER vs. CIRCLE(INTTAX), JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS was deducted u/s 195 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked regarding the source of funds used to purchase the said transactions vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 19.09.2022 and show cause notice dated 01.02.2023. On perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, it is noted that the assessee did not produce substantiating documentary

SHRI MARK LEE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS which should be allowed to the assessee. ITA No. 215, 216, 217 & 218/JP/2019 4 Sh. Mark Lee, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7 (1), Jaipur 6. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal before the ld. CIT(A) due to non-receipt of the order and even on merits

SHRI MARK LEE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS which should be allowed to the assessee. ITA No. 215, 216, 217 & 218/JP/2019 4 Sh. Mark Lee, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7 (1), Jaipur 6. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal before the ld. CIT(A) due to non-receipt of the order and even on merits

SHRI MARK LEE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS which should be allowed to the assessee. ITA No. 215, 216, 217 & 218/JP/2019 4 Sh. Mark Lee, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7 (1), Jaipur 6. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal before the ld. CIT(A) due to non-receipt of the order and even on merits

SHRI MARK LEE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS which should be allowed to the assessee. ITA No. 215, 216, 217 & 218/JP/2019 4 Sh. Mark Lee, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7 (1), Jaipur 6. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal before the ld. CIT(A) due to non-receipt of the order and even on merits