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

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

272A(2)(K) of the Act which talks about the failure to deliver a copy of the statement within the time specified in section 200(3) or proviso to section 206C (3) of the Act. In the instant case, there is no such factual situation before us rather there is a delay in filing of quarterly e-TDS

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

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty is prescribed Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A

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) of sub-section (2

MAHAVIR PRASAD JIAN,TONK vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench.

272A(2)(K) of the Act which talks about the failure to deliver a copy of statement within the time specified in section 200(3) or proviso to section 206C of the Act. In this case, there is no such factual situation rather there is a delay in filling of quarterly e-TDS

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

DISTRICT EXCISE OFFICE, RAJASTHAN SARKAR, EXCISE DEPARTMENT,KARAULI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-TDS, UDAIPUR

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

272A(2)(k) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer due to the default on the part of the assessee to submit the quarterly statements in Form No. 27EQ and there was a delay of 452 days in submitting the quarterly statement U/s 200(3) of the Act. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed to have

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

272A(1)(d), which are not sustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. We find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days each. The assessee

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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. The assessee

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

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

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)

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 sof Section 139A. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 21-03-2014 at Room

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