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 on the disallowance of Amortization of surface rights of Rs. 8,18,38,172/- and disallowance of Depreciation on intangible

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

disallowance made by the AO has been deleted by this Tribunal then, the penalty levied against such disallowance is not sustainable

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

disallowance made by the AO has been deleted by this Tribunal then, the penalty levied against such disallowance is not sustainable

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

disallowance made by the AO has been deleted by this Tribunal then, the penalty levied against such disallowance is not sustainable

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

disallowance made by the AO has been deleted by this Tribunal then, the penalty levied against such disallowance is not sustainable

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

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

disallowance made by the AO has been deleted by this Tribunal then, the penalty levied against such disallowance is not sustainable

M/S SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee company derives income from trading of tea blended in its own factory and from windmill. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the AO has disallowed

M/S BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK , AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court, Jaipur To Recall/Review Its Order Dated 24.04.2018 Disposing Off The Appeal Of The Revenue Without Going Into The Merits.”

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of such disallowance. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the AO in respect

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

disallowed such claim & initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271. Tribunal deleted the penalty. The HC held that Dharmendra's case cannot

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside." The situation in the present case is still

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance initiated penalty proceeding as per the provision of section 270A of the Act and thereby ordered to levy the penalty

RAM KISHORE MEENA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD, MORAK, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance made out of certain expenses, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

M/S TRIVENI QUALITY MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside. " The situation in the present case is still

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty on the premise that when any disallowances sustained irrespective of the facts of the case penalty has to be levied

RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside.” 6 Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank

SHRI VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

disallowance would not per se lead to the imposition of penalty. Since 15 Vishnu Kumar Bhargava vs. ITO addition and disallowances

ITO, JAIPUR vs. GAJANAN TOWERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

penalty in respect of disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia), the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the penalty. 8. We have

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

disallowance does not automatically result in levy of penalty. Appellant prays penalty levied mechanically by solely relying upon conclusion drawn