STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

272A, sub-section 6 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS) (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

C) Branch Manager, State Bank of India v. ACIT [2014] 41 taxmann.com 268 (Cuttack - Trib.): Head note “..Section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to answer question, sign statements, etc. [Delay in filing e-TDS return] - Assessment year 2009-10 - There was a delay of 848 days in first quarter, 756 days in second quarter

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

1. That the CIT (A)-III, Jaipur has grossly erred in upholding imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,79,400/- under section 272A(2)(k).” M/s. World Trade Park Ltd., Jaipur. 2. The AO noted that the assessee has defaulted in filing the quarterly statement/return in respect of the TDS on salary payment as well as other payments. Accordingly

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

1. That the CIT (A)-III, Jaipur has grossly erred in upholding imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,79,400/- under section 272A(2)(k).” M/s. World Trade Park Ltd., Jaipur. 2. The AO noted that the assessee has defaulted in filing the quarterly statement/return in respect of the TDS on salary payment as well as other payments. Accordingly

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

272A, no penalty can be imposed unless the assessee is given an opportunity of being heard. All these provisions indicate that the failure on the part of the assessee, who was the payer of the interest, to file the declarations given to him by the payees of the interest, within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) to section

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

272A(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, Range for non compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that again an opportunity was provide to the appellant by the AO to explain its case, however, still no compliance was made on the date fixed. This

MAHAVIR PRASAD JIAN,TONK vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench.

C) of the Act. The learned Assessing officer is not clear under which section penalty is leviable. The same view is supported by the decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur as held in the case of Argus Golden Traders Ltd. vs. JCIT Jaipur. 8. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRATEEK KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

TDS. (iii) Capacity proved:- The assessee has filed copy of balance sheet and profit and loss account of the firm. The turnover of the firm is Rs 219.58 crores. The assessee has also filed copy of bank statement of the firm which shows huge number of transaction of high value. There is no onus on the assessee to prove source

SURAJ MINING (GRANITE) PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT (TDS), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Me Placed On Record An Affidavit Explaining

TDS return by invoking provisions of section 272A(2) of the I.T Act, 1961. 4. By the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of assessee by observing that there was no compliance of the assessee. The ld. AR before me placed on record an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-appearance of assessee

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

Section 69A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts of the case i) by treating the cash deposit of Rs. 2499800/- during 01/4/2016 to 31/10/2016 out of the opening cash balance as on 01/4/2016 as 'explained", ii) by treating the cash deposit of Rs. 1522500/- during 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016 as unexplained