ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

penalty levied for disallowance of depreciation on non-existing assets of Rs. 12,15,25,004/- without appreciating the fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

penalty levied for disallowance of depreciation on non-existing assets of Rs. 12,15,25,004/- without appreciating the fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

penalty levied for disallowance of depreciation on non-existing assets of Rs. 12,15,25,004/- without appreciating the fact

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation not lead to penalty u/s 271(1)©. Claim of higher depreciation not be treated as concealment of income or furnish

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

penalty imposed by ld.AO @ 200% by alleging the excess claim of depreciation is misreporting, whereas penalty proceedings were initiated for underreporting

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

penalty imposed by ld.AO @ 200% by alleging the excess claim of depreciation is misreporting, whereas penalty proceedings were initiated for underreporting

SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty just because whatever final value of closing stock is determined, it will become the opening stock of the next financial year. Similarly, there could be dispute regarding rate of depreciation

SEAWARD EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

depreciation @ 15%. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income after recording necessary satisfaction in the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 936/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cuke The Acit M/S. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Circle – 2 Vs. Vidyut Bhawan, Ajmer Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 8526 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 943/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cuke M/S. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd The Acit Vs. Vidyut Bhawan, Circle – 2 Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer Ajmer Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 8526 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Sunil Porwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 09 /01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 21-09-2017 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271 (1) ( C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 The Acit, Circle – 2, Ajmer Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer 2.1 In The Scrutiny Assessment Completed On 28-03-2013, The Ao Inter

penalty order passed u/s 271 (1) ( c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 The ACIT, Circle – 2, Ajmer vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer 2.1 In the scrutiny assessment completed on 28-03-2013, the AO inter alia made the additions on account of depreciation

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty imposed by the Learned AO on the basis of that in the quantum proceedings the Hon’ble ITAT sustained the addition on account of income surrendered by the assessee during the course of search. The learned CIT(A) has also mentioned on page 13 of the appellate order that the surrender of income was not voluntary and the income

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

depreciation assessment is enhanced accordingly. The penalty proceedings u/s 270A(9) are initiated on the enhancement for misreporting of income

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation wrongly claimed is subject to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR further

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation wrongly claimed is subject to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR further

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation wrongly claimed is subject to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR further

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

depreciation the total income is determined as Rs.NIL. 5. In the penalty proceedings the assessee filed a detailed reply as reproduced

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs.2,79,25,403/- imposed by the AO ignoring the fact that the addition w.r.t. the issues i.e. amortization of surface rights of Rs.8,18,38,172/- and disallowance of depreciation

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RAVI SANCHETI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty be levied with reference to disallowance of deductions for excess allowance of depreciation and dividends (u/s 80M) in the absence

SHRI VIVEK SONI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation of car claimed by the assessee. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) and thereafter the AO initiated the penalty