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

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

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

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

k@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 27.08.2018 for Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein the assessee bank has challenged the sustenance of penalty levied by the AO U/s 271C of the I.T. Act. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that

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

TDS, Department, Gulab Bagh, Karauli. Udaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHDO3778F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 24/09/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/09/2018 vkns

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

272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 2 M/s. Suraj Mining(Granite)P.Ltd ITA No. 78/JP//2017 M/s. Suraj Export 2. In these appeals, the assessee is aggrieved against the ex- parte orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) without giving the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. 3. Rival contentions have been heard

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)

k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against two separate orders of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 24.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2017-18 and 18- 19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- Govindam

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

k@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I Jaipur dated 30/09/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of precious and semi precious stones. The return of income was e-filed by the assessee on 30/09/2011 declaring total income

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)

k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 13/01/2023 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2017-18, which in turn arise from the order of the ITO Ward 3(5), Jaipur dated 16.12.2019 passed under