RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s. 271(1)(c), but finally the notice is issued by the assessing officer as per his wisdom and for that the ld. PCIT cannot direct the AO. To drive home to this contention the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the circular No. F.No.279/Misc./M- 116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 where in the board has categorically accepted that

M/S SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

201 ITR 325 (Guj), the provisions of Section 80J(6A) were considered. The wording of Section 80J(6A) is similar to that of Section 80AC which is in issue in the present case. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court took the view that the word “shall” which occurs in Section 80J(6A) be read as “may” and that the requirement

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271 D is independent section where 1st limb of section in not applicable by the assessee and whereas second limb of section is applicable in 13 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT assessee case in case penalty was initiated on 07.08.2019 and from the end of 1st Sept 2019. In the present case, whereas the penalty was initiated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble High Court Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of Hon’Ble Itat & The Matter Is Subjudice?”

201/- and determining Book Profit at Rs.3,88,43,584/- Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was initiated by the assessing officer for concealment of particulars of income. In response to the penalty notice, the assessee vide its submission dated 28.07.2021 uploaded on ITBA on 29.07.2021 stated that the assessee has not intentionally escaped any income

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)

Section 263 of the Act does not give any power to PCIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to be initiated or not. Where the Commissioner finds while examining the records of an assessment order that AO has not initiated penalty proceedings, he cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

201(1A) of the Act. The ratio of the case is not applicable to the penalties u/s 271C etc. and is not related to the limitations provided u/s 275(1)(a) and 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. ” 5. As the assessee

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