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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271C, [ section 271CA,] section 271D , section 271E, [ section 271F, [ section 271FA,] [ section 271FB ,] [ section 271G,]] clause (c) or clause (d ) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) 7 Shri Neeraj Purohit vs JCIT , Range-4, Jaipur of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [ section 272B or] [sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

disallowance does deincentivize not deducting tax at source, when such tax deductions are due, but, so far as the legal framework is concerned, this provision is not for the purpose of penalizing for the tax deduction at source lapses. The scheme of Section 40(a)(ia), as ITAT see it, is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should

MORANI FOURWHEELS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

271C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee's tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss

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)

271C : Failed to deduct tax at source, wholly or partly, under section 192 to 195 of Chapter XVII-2. 271D : Taken or accepted certain loans and deposited in contravention of provisions of Section 269SS. 271E Repaid any deposit specified in section 269T in contravention to its provisions. 5 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 271F Failed to furnish return

R.F. PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of Assessee in ITA No

271C of the Income-Tax Act". 11. In the instant case, the appellant had paid the interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act and there is no dispute that the tax due had been paid by the deductee-assessee (M/s Pradeep Oil Corporation). It is not disputed before us that the circular is applicable to the facts situation

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. R.F. PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of Assessee in ITA No

271C of the Income-Tax Act". 11. In the instant case, the appellant had paid the interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act and there is no dispute that the tax due had been paid by the deductee-assessee (M/s Pradeep Oil Corporation). It is not disputed before us that the circular is applicable to the facts situation

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

section 271C of the IT Act. Considering & affirming the similar facts / pleas the LD. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi in similar type of cases of Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (A Division of Forest Department Like Assessee) vide Appeal order no. 10144/2019-20 , 10145/2019-20, 101431/2019-20 order dated 28.02.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 / 2017-18 has deleted the addition / disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

section 271C of the IT Act. Considering & affirming the similar facts / pleas the LD. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi in similar type of cases of Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (A Division of Forest Department Like Assessee) vide Appeal order no. 10144/2019-20 , 10145/2019-20, 101431/2019-20 order dated 28.02.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 / 2017-18 has deleted the addition / disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

section 271C of the IT Act. Considering & affirming the similar facts / pleas the LD. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi in similar type of cases of Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (A Division of Forest Department Like Assessee) vide Appeal order no. 10144/2019-20 , 10145/2019-20, 101431/2019-20 order dated 28.02.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 / 2017-18 has deleted the addition / disallowance

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.

disallowing 25% of unverifiable purchases. Thus it is a case of an estimate against an estimate hence no penalty is leviable in such a case where addition are based purely on estimate basis. The following cases are quoted for support – (i) Gulraj Vaswani Vs. ACIT, (ITSSA No. 21/JP/06) in Tax World Vol-XXXIX page-35 held that "Before Tribunal