ANIL SHARMA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

8. In view of the above findings, this appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC upholding the penalty order u/s 271E of the Act, is hereby set aside

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 15.10.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. The Matter Pertains To The Assessment Year 2014-15. Vide Impugned Order, Penalty Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) Has Been Upheld.

234D and Interest withdrawn u/s 244A as per IINS 150 issued which is part of this order. As the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 44AA and 44AB therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271A and 271B are being initiated. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S OM PLANTATION,22, PATH NO.6, VIJAY BARI, TEEN DUKAN, SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

234D are being charged as per ITNS 150 appended to this order, which forms a part of this order. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 have been initiated separately for concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5 Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A). Before

ABDUL SAMI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 22/07/2013. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 20,52,500/- in saving bank account of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and used credit card for making payments of bills totaling

ITO,JAIPUR vs. ABDUL SAMI, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 22/07/2013. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 20,52,500/- in saving bank account of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and used credit card for making payments of bills totaling

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR mainly prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has invalidly dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

234D of the Act. Issued penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of Income determined u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty notice u/s 271F r.w.s. 274 issued for non-compliance of the provisions of section

JAGDISH PRASAD DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

234D of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the appellant is wrong and bad in law. Kindly delete the same. 8. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any on the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from retail shop

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

RAJESH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing calculation of tax and interest chargeable, if any, is attached herewith forming part of this order. Charge interest u/s 234A/ 234B/234C and 234D, if any, a peer rules. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 270A(1) r.w.s.270A(9)(a) and u/s 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

RAGHUVEER METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the ground no

234D of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, in dismissing the ground for initiation of penalty by AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading of TMT bars. It filed

RAGHUVEER METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the ground no

234D of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, in dismissing the ground for initiation of penalty by AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading of TMT bars. It filed

SANTOSH KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO 6(4 ) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D & 244A(3) if applicable as per rules. ITNS-150 issued, which is forming part of this order. Issue demand notice & challan accordingly. Penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

ASHOK PARNAMI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

234D is bad in law. 4. Consequential initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law. 5. The appellant craves to add/alter grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 2. The assessee filed the return declaring total income of Rs. 6,08,60,400/- on 16.02.2017 which was processed

LAXMAN NAINANI,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

234D of the Act. The assesse totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is general in nature which does not require