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

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

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