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 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

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

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

DCIT, C-2, AJMER vs. JAI NARAYAN AGARWAL,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 14A the Act. [Rs. 9,53,227/-] Moreover, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing

M/S TRIVENI QUALITY MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 43B of the Act on account of taxes, cess, PF and also filed all the relevant details. The assessee has also furnished all the necessary particulars in Tax audit Report and also given notes in its computation of total income. We find that now this issue, in the given facts, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

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

SUBHASH BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

u/s 271(1)(c) rws 274 has been initiated separately for concealment of income/furnishings of inaccurate particulars of income.” From the above, it is evident that initiation of proceeding is not specific while imposing penalty in the penalty order dated 22/3/2013. The Assessing Officer, in para 7 stated as under:- 4 Shri Subhash Beniwal. “In view of aforesaid discussion

AJESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

penalty proceedings.” In the present case also the notice has been issue in the pre-typed performa there is no specific charge. Therefore in our considered view, notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha (supra). Another ground

UDAI KANT MISHRA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A. Separately, penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s 271(1)(c). Thereafter, after considering the submissions of the assessee

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and a notice u/s 274 read with section 271 dated 18.02.2015 was issued to the assessee company. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and raised an additional ground of appeal stating that

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. JHANDEWALA FOODS LIMITED 35, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground no

14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegiums comprising of three Principal Commissioners or] Commissioners

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