M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

14A of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed. 3.1 Apropos Ground NO. 2 of the assessee, it is noted that Ld. PCIT vide show cause notice dt. 28.02.2023 issued u/s 263 (PB 1-3) observed that assessee has made following international transactions with the associate enterprises which have not been reported

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 271(1)(c). Therefore, in view of the Delhi High Court Judgment and ITAT Mumbai Bench Judgement the assessee's case will fall under the category of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act was rightly imposed by the AO.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR supported

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

271 shall not apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 and subsequent assessment years and penalty be levied under the newly inserted section 270A with effect Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT from 1st April, 2017. The new section 270A provides for levy of penalty

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

271 shall not apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017 and subsequent assessment years and penalty be levied under the newly inserted section 270A with effect Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT from 1st April, 2017. The new section 270A provides for levy of penalty

RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 80P earlier by Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 but later on, reversed the decision due to Rajasthan High Court order vide dated 04.09.2008 in case of Sirohi Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. As per computation of the above mentioned assessment year submitted to Income Tax department and to assessing

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

14A and Assessing Officer as well as assessee had used same details to arrive at different quantum of disallowances, this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be misreporting and further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted, impugned penalty order was to be quashed and revenue was to be directed

SHRI SHYAM SUNDER DUSEJA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(3), JAIPUR, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied is hereby directed to be deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee

14A of the Act. In respect of both these additions, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.40 lacs. When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), the penalty was deleted by CIT(A) and now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Regarding the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer in respect of addition in respect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

14A of the Act in para 5(i) covers disallowance required to be made u/s 36(1)(iii). l) Accordingly, disallowance of Rs. 29,36,97,412/- (21,07,21,984 + 8,29,75,428) is made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act as per findings given above. Penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

14A of the Act in para 5(i) covers disallowance required to be made u/s 36(1)(iii). l) Accordingly, disallowance of Rs. 29,36,97,412/- (21,07,21,984 + 8,29,75,428) is made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act as per findings given above. Penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

14A of the Act in para 5(i) covers disallowance required to be made u/s 36(1)(iii). l) Accordingly, disallowance of Rs. 29,36,97,412/- (21,07,21,984 + 8,29,75,428) is made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act as per findings given above. Penalty

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD, 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the quantum appeal from which the addition had been made, has already been decided in favour of the assessee by this Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 06/04/2021 passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

14A of the Act in para 5(i) covers\ndisallowance required to be made u/s 36(1)(iii).\n1) Accordingly, disallowance of Rs.29,36,97,412/- (21,07,21,984 + 8,29,75,428)\nis made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of\nthe Act as per findings given above. Penalty proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

14A of the Act in para 5(i) covers\ndisallowance required to be made u/s 36(1)(iii).\n1) Accordingly, disallowance of Rs.29,36,97,412/- (21,07,21,984 + 8,29,75,428)\nis made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of\nthe Act as per findings given above. Penalty proceedings

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 9 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 7 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.4 and Ground

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.” 6 M/s Compucom Software Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur 5. It was submitted that complete information along with necessary evidence and explanation as required by the Assessing Officer was submitted during the original assessment proceedings. It was accordingly submitted that it is a case

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

271(1)(c). The appellant’s appeal before Ld. CIT (Appeals) against above order u/s 143(3) of the A.O. is pending as on date for disposal. 1.3 Post the above, Ld. CIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 11-10-2018 to revise the above order of the A.O. Copy of the notices dated

DAUSA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DAUSA vs. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a amounting of Rs

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by AO, such confirmation being illogical as well as irrelevant hence deserves to be set aside. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) and AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, same being unlawful

DAUSA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DAUSA vs. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a amounting of Rs

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by AO, such confirmation being illogical as well as irrelevant hence deserves to be set aside. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) and AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, same being unlawful