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)

Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.’’ 9.3 Though the above decision is in respect to the penalty u/s 271 E but it made clear that when the original assessment order itself is set aside, the satisfaction recorded therein for the purpose of initiation

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 36(1) specifically disallows the interest payment on borrowed funds taken to purchase fixed assets upto the period before put to use. Since no funds were borrowed and no interest was paid the disallowance is illegal and to be quashed. Your honour, here I want to place the decision of Hon`ble high court of Rajasthan in case

M/S LOK VIKAS HOUSING FUNDS LTD.( NOW LOK VIKAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. THE ADDL.CIT RANGE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271E of the Act are declared as untenable. Ridhi Sidhi Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT ITA No.49/JU/2013 order dt. 18.03.2013 (Jodhpur) (Trib.) (Case Laws Compilation PB 36-57) The relevant Para 6, 8 & 9 of the order reads as under:- 6. Any loan is a type of debt, which entails the redistribution of financial assets over a time between

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance, such purpose has to be kept in mind and provisions of the Act cannot be applied straightway, as it may result in undue hardship to assessees. Similar is the case of section 40A(3), the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 40A(3) particularly was to ensure that payments exceeding the sum specified are made by a crossed

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance, such purpose has to be kept in mind and provisions of the Act cannot be applied straightway, as it may result in undue hardship to assessees. Similar is the case of section 40A(3), the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 40A(3) particularly was to ensure that payments exceeding the sum specified are made by a crossed

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance, such purpose has to be kept in mind and provisions of the Act cannot be applied straightway, as it may result in undue hardship to assessees. Similar is the case of section 40A(3), the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 40A(3) particularly was to ensure that payments exceeding the sum specified are made by a crossed

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)

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 of income as required by section139 before the end of the relevant assessment year. 272A(1) Refused or failed to: (a) Answer questions. (b) Sig. Statements. (c) Attene to give evidence or produce books

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271E, 271F and so on of the 1.T. Act are independent of the quantum appeal and therefore provision of section 275(1)(c) of the Act is applicable and not the provision of section 275(1)(a), if at all the penalty is initiated in the assessment order. The appellant has rightly pointed out that limitation of penalty

JAGAT SINGH RATHORE,TONK vs. ITO WD 7(2), , JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance so made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same kindly be deleted in full. 3. The AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act. The appellant totally denies

GURJANT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed. 4 Shri Gurjant Singh vs. PCIT 4. On culmination of proceedings, the ld. PCIT called for the assessment recorded upon examination ld. PCIT noted that an addition of Rs. 16,61,53,771/- was made under section 68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained sundry creditors. The FAO has initiated penalty under section 270A