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

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,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

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

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

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

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

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

KALPANA JHALA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

section 282 of the Income Tax Act.1961 read with Rule 127 of the - Income Tax Rules, 1961, service of notice through email on the email address at available in return of income or last income tax return is a valid service On going through the penalty order it emerges that the notices have been issued online on ITBA with proper