RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. In our view, on examination of assessment record, the PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

113 (Del) DIT(Exemp.) Vs. All India Deaf & Dumb Society Penalty – Loans in cash exceeding specified limit – Finding that there was no intent to violate law – Cancellation of penalty – Valid – Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 271D, 271E. (iv) Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in case of Industrial Enterprises v. Dy. CIT (2000) 73 ITD 252 (Hyd) in para

DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. Ld. PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part of assessment proceedings. Thus, the PCIT's revisionary

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)

271(1)(c) was initiated by the Id. AO in order u/s. 143(3). The first appeal of the assessee was dismissed (P.B. pages 15 to 23) whereas the second appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT was partly allowed (P.B. pages 24 to 35) with direction to allow deduction @ 100% under section 10A of Act on enhanced profit

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove

271(1)(b) of the Act)\n| बनाम\n| The ACIT\n| Shri Shailendra Garg\n| Vs.\n| Circle-6\n| Chak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur,\n| Ganganagar - 335 027\n| Jaipur\n| स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E\n| प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\n| अपीलार्थी / Appellant\n\nआयकरअपीलसं. / ITA Nos.1558 /JP/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16\n(Penalty Appeal u/s

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical

113/-u/s 2(22)(e), professional charges Rs.73,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia), Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat Rs.s24, 12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15