ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

271 of the Act. The ld AR has contended that the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) are ex-facie unsustainable in law. The ld AR has then contended that Section 251 of the Act limits power of enhancement of ld. CIT(A) to the aspects considered by the Assessing Officer and not to pickup any new source

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

271 of the Act. The ld AR has contended that the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) are ex-facie unsustainable in law. The ld AR has then contended that Section 251 of the Act limits power of enhancement of ld. CIT(A) to the aspects considered by the Assessing Officer and not to pickup any new source

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustained and is directed to be deleted. Ground No. 1 is allowed. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR has submitted as under:- “3.2 It is undisputed that at the time of booking of expenses and crediting of the ABA Pool Account, the precise amount to be transferred to each

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs. 6,37,200/- confirmed by him in quantum proceedings. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3. Since both the appeals are of the same assessee and related to same assessment year

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.6,37,200/- confirmed by him in quantum proceedings. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3. Since both the appeals are of the same assessee and related to same assessment year and argued

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the IT Act read with section 274 of the IT Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. “4.2 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant's submissions

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the IT Act read with section 274 of the IT Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. “4.2 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant's submissions

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

271 AAC. The penalty proceedings are premature and bad in law as the substantive additions are disputed and not sustainable. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential in nature. The interest charges are not sustainable once the additions

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD) (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is to sent to the Addl. CIT separately for non deduction of TDS on perquisites paid by the assessee. This is in addition to any demand that may be raised in respect of F.Y. 2012-13 on any other issue not covered in this order for the financial year involved in this order

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is to sent to the Addl. CIT separately for non deduction of TDS on perquisites paid by the assessee. This is in addition to any demand that may be raised in respect of F.Y. 2012-13 on any other issue not covered in this order for the financial year involved in this order

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is to sent to the Addl. CIT separately for non deduction of TDS on perquisites paid by the assessee. This is in addition to any demand that may be raised in respect of F.Y. 2012-13 on any other issue not covered in this order for the financial year involved in this order

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is to sent to the Addl. CIT separately for non deduction of TDS on perquisites paid by the assessee. This is in addition to any demand that may be raised in respect of F.Y. 2012-13 on any other issue not covered in this order for the financial year involved in this order

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act. Since the cause for the same has not arisen as yet, the ground does not\nrequired any adjudication.\nIn the result, the appeal is Allowed.\"\nFeeling dissatisfied from the finding so recorded by the Id. CIT(A), the\nrevenue challenges that order of the Id. CIT(A) before this tribunal

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 AAC. The\npenalty proceedings are premature and bad in law as the substantive additions are\ndisputed and not sustainable.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and\nerred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential in nature. The\ninterest charges are not sustainable once the additions

MIKUNI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT,

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

Section 270A of the Act. Reliance has also been placed on the decision dated 20.2.2023 in Anjis Developers Private Limited vs. PCIT, ITA No. 959/MUM/2022. 6. Admittedly, the assessee company entered into various international transactions with its Associate Enterprises; that the case was selected for scrutiny, and referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “TPO”) u/s 92CA(1