BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271B\nread with section 274 of the Act.\nSince the ground relating to initiation of penalty is consequential to the\nassessment, therefore the same does not need any adjudication and is\naccordingly disposed.\nGround No. 7\n7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter grounds of appeal.\nThe above ground

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

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

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