BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

12A) as per the act which clearly stipulates as follows: "books or books of account" includes ledgers, day-books, cash books, account-books and other books, whether kept in the written form or as print-outs of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electro-magnetic data storage device; In the present case, the assessee

MR. MANOJ KUMAR GOUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c ), but the ratio behind the same is that whenever any penal proceedings are initiated against the assessee, there must be a specific charge in the notice by which jurisdiction is assumed. In absence of same, the assessee is not able to reply to same and hence it vitiates the entire proceedings. With the above submissions, we hereby

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 12AA(4) of the Act w.e.f. 01/04/2013. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing.” 2 ITA 688/JP/2019_ M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association Vs Pr.CIT 3. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271F, 271

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

271/- was created. Against this intimation, assessee filed an application u/s 154 and in this proceedings, assessee filed a detailed reply dated 28.08.2013 explaining how its income is exempt from tax under the Act. 3 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur 4. It was submitted that the AO, however, rejected the claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

section 11(5) and is not eligible for claim of exemption u/s 11. 3.2 Unreasonable payment of salary:- The details filed have revealed that the assessee has made payment of salary to persons specified U/s 13(2) of the Act as under:- S. Name of the person Amount Rs. No. ITA No. 960/JP/2018 & CO No.05/JP/2020 20 M/s Apollo Animal Medical

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), 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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should 3 Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust not be levied in its case. He further informed that in the annexure of this notice under section 271(1)(c) it has been mentioned that the Id. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054066417(1) dated 30/06/2023

ROHIT LADIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

section 2(12A) and, therefore, addition u/s 68 can also be\nmade, irrespective of whether credit entries are made in the books of account of\nthe assessee or not. Alternatively, in case the money itself is treated as\nunexplained as the same is taxable u/s 69A of the Act. It is held accordingly.\nBased on the material available on file

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTRIES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) I.T. Act. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only on the delay of appeal filed by the assessee. Apropos to these appeals, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “3.1 I have carefully gone through the Grounds of Appeal taken by the appellant and penalty order passed

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 are initiated separately for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particular of income." Since it is well known fact that in order to claim the exempted income under section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, it is mandatory for the trusts to file Form No. 10. During

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

12A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, books or books of account, include ledgers, day-books, cash books, account-books and other books, whether kept in the written form or as electronic data. Section 145 does not specify any set of accounts to be maintained by an assessee. Also, Rule 6F of Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribes certain

GAU JEEV PARMARTH SEWA SANSTHA,ALWAR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

penalty upon assessee u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee challenged the order before the CIT(A). However, as none appeared for hearing in support, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. It was held that CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all issues which arise from impugned order before him whether or not same