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

273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the same. Further, under sub-section (4) of section 272A, no penalty can be imposed unless the assessee is given an opportunity of being heard. All these

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

disallowed is deemed to represent income for which\nparticulars have been concealed.\n\nThe assessee has not demonstrated reasonable cause or bona fide conduct, and thus\nthe presumption under Explanation 1 applies with full force.\n\n30\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\n\n6. No Immunity Under Section 273B

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and other additions were also made in the assessment order, which are accepted by the assessee and the demand raised as per assessment order has been paid. Therefore, these circumstances would clearly reveal that the assessee has reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of section. Therefore

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) of sub-section (1) of] [ section 271 , section 271A, [ section 271AA,] section 271B [, section 271BA ], [ section 271BB,] section 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

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)

273B and thereby, the proceedings initiated under ss. 271D and 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

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

273B of the Act. In view of the above, as the assessee has failed to get its books of accounts audited more so when the total receipts admitted by the assessee in its income and expenditure account was Rs. 4426.39 lakhs, the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

273B of the Act. In view of the above, as the assessee has failed to get its books of accounts audited more so when the total receipts admitted by the assessee in its income and expenditure account was Rs. 4426.39 lakhs, the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

273B of the Act. In view of the above, as the assessee has failed to get its books of accounts audited more so when the total receipts admitted by the assessee in its income and expenditure account was Rs. 4426.39 lakhs, the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

273B of the Act. In view of the above, as the assessee has failed to get its books of accounts audited more so when the total receipts admitted by the assessee in its income and expenditure account was Rs. 4426.39 lakhs, the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

273B of the Act. In view of the above, as the assessee has failed to get its books of accounts audited more so when the total receipts admitted by the assessee in its income and expenditure account was Rs. 4426.39 lakhs, the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

273B of the Act. In view of the above, as the assessee has failed to get its books of accounts audited more so when the total receipts admitted by the assessee in its income and expenditure account was Rs. 4426.39 lakhs, the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting

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)

273B (P.B. pages 131 to 142). (3) Hathway C. Net (P) Ltd. Vs. TRO (2018) 192 TTJ (Mumb 'F') 497 : Assessee in default- limitation for passing order under section 201(1) / 201 * (1A) . Show- cause notice having been issued on 23rd September 2003. Order passed u/s. 201(1) / 201 * (1A) on 28th March 2011 was barred by limitation. (P.B. pages

M/S SILVER AND ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 12,384/- on account of delay in deposition of ESI & PF. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB were initiated by issuance of notice on 23.12.2016. Subsequently, penalty was imposed u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act at the rate of 10% amounting to Rs. 2,65,05,090/- vide order dated 24.4.2017. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee

JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Passing The Order.

disallowance of claim of the assessee would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income when all the details of expenditure as well as income were available with the AO as part of the return of income. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that even

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) and Rs. 429,539/- which was brought to tax in respect of interest on income tax refund. During the course of assessment proceedings, on perusal of Form No. 3CA, the Assessing Officer noticed that the statutory audit of the assessee was conducted on 16.07.2014 and the assessee has therefore failed to furnish

GIRDHAR GOPAL LAHOTI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KISHANGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

273B of the Income Tax Act or explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1)(1) of the Act. 10 Shri Girdhar Gopal Lahoti vs. ITO It is not a case when the assessee claimed a deduction but could not substantiate by the assessee or a case where during the assessment proceeding the AO has made an adhoc/estimated disallowance

SMT. RAGINI JAIN,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

disallowed by the AO and consequently the addition was made does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The mere fact that the amount has been assessed is not sufficient for the purpose of levying the penalty but the circumstances must show that there was conscious concealment

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 :

disallowance. Copy enclosed. It is requested to kindly consider the facts in view of provisions of law & delete the demand.” “Date of Hearing : - Sr. No. Nature of Documents Page No. (1) Analysis of Amount paid to each VPPMC, with 1 to 4 pan & year wise amount paid (2) Copy of clause 8.8 of Government of Rajasthan Notification

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 :

disallowance. Copy enclosed. It is requested to kindly consider the facts in view of provisions of law & delete the demand.” “Date of Hearing : - Sr. No. Nature of Documents Page No. (1) Analysis of Amount paid to each VPPMC, with 1 to 4 pan & year wise amount paid (2) Copy of clause 8.8 of Government of Rajasthan Notification