GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act being the penalty on\nthe assessed income. Since we have set aside the order of the assessment\nto reframed the consequential issue of levy of penalty also be decided\nbased on the outcomes of the quantum proceedings. Thus, the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no. 185/JP/2022 becomes infructuous at this stage

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

194A of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 18.03.2016 after recording proper reasons and satisfaction of competent authority which stands duly served upon the assessee. The assessee had not filed any return of income, therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued and duly served Gobind Chhangomal Sajnani, Jaipur vs. ITO after

PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Ao.

194A of the Act, the 30% of interest expenditure amount to Rs. 27,132/- (30% of 90,441/-) was hereby disallowed 5 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT and added back to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 3.2 The ld. AO noted that the balance of capital amounts of the assessee firm is found as negative

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that