DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the satisfaction of AO as to whether the penalty proceedings are to initiated or not and if initiated under which section/clause. Ld. PCIT cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not part of assessment proceedings. Thus, the PCIT's revisionary

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be made. Further, a show cause notice u / s * 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was sent to the designated verification unit through speed post and the same was delivered. In response to the notices, no reply was received from the assessee. Even after

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. NASH FASHION(INDIA) LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be made. Further, a show cause notice u / s * 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was sent to the designated verification unit through speed post and the same was delivered. In response to the notices, no reply was received from the assessee. Even after

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 should not be made.\nFurther, a show cause notice u/s * 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nwas sent to the designated verification unit through speed post and the same\nwas delivered. In response to the notices, no reply was received from the\nassessee.\nEven after

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short\n\"Act\"] by ITO, Ward 2(1), Ajmer [ for short AO].\n2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -\n1. The impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.03.2018 is\nbad in law and on facts of the case, for want

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

penalty of Rs.\n203275/- U/s 271(1)(C ).\n5. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing.\n6. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the\ntime of hearing.\nGROUNDS OF APPEAL\n1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particular, of income. [(G)-Addition ofRs. 17.56,66/] 7.8 Total addition as per CBDT's Circular No. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 & as per provisions of section 37 of the Act of the Act so discussed supra is as under

DHARMENDRA KUMAR,BHANWARGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAN

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

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

254/- r/o Rs.16,23,250/- u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has failed to comply notices u/s 142(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore penalty u/s 271

RAVINDRA GAUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

Penalty proceedings for non-compliance of the notices issued u/s 142(1) to the assessee as discussed above in the order, for unexplained income/cash deposit as discussed above in the order, and non filing of ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act as discussed above in the order, are initiated by way of issuing show cause notice u/s 271

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 4.3 In ITA No. 1045/JPR/2024 the assessee

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 4.3 In ITA No. 1045/JPR/2024 the assessee

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee in support of his claim along with condonation delay application also provided the affidavit as per the law, It is further submitted that even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) could have asked assessee to furnish other

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

254 justified in accepting this claim though no revised return u/s 139(5) was fled before the AO also refer CIT v/s Britania Industries Ltd 396 ITR 677(Cal.) In the case of Suresh Kumar Agarwal vs. JCIT in ITA Nos. 1073 & 1074/JP/2018 Mar 15, 2022 (2022) 64 CCH 0234 Jaipur Trib it has been held Penalty—Penalty for failure

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) were issued. Thereafter, the ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings as per the case were discussed with him. It was stated that the assessee has been engaged in retail business in the name and style of Krishna Radymade& Fancy Store at near Government Hospital, Samod. The assessee furnished trading, profit & loss account

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) were issued. Thereafter, the ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings as per the case were discussed with him. It was stated that the assessee has been engaged in retail business in the name and style of Krishna Radymade& Fancy Store at near Government Hospital, Samod. The assessee furnished trading, profit & loss account

RIDHIRAJ BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, NCRB, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r/w section 274 of the IT Act is initiated for concealment of income. 4. Being aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty unless the claim was false or made with the intent to evade tax. 7. The appellant reserves the right to add, modify, alter, or delete any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 3 Devika Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed his return

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

254(High 9-17 Court of Gauhati) 4. CIT Vs. Korley Trading Co. Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 820 (High Court of Calcutta) 18-19 5. Kamal Motors vs. CIT [2003] 131 Taxman 155(High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur 20-21 Bench) 6. CIT vs. R.S. Rathore[1996] 86 Taxman 20(High Court of Rajasthan