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)

u/s 263, cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings us 271(1)(c)/270A/271AAB. The issue involved is no longer Res Integra in as much as identical issue is directly covered by the binding decision in case of CIT vs Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 27 Taxmann 447 (Raj) (DPB 1-3), holding that: "In J.K. D'Costa's case (supra

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 of the Constitution, by way of section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income

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

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

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

254/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group companies. Disallowance of contribution to DAV Trust Management Society Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 82,10,270/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing contribution to DAV Trust Management Society. ITAT No. 1099/JPR/2024

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

254/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group companies. Disallowance of contribution to DAV Trust Management Society Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 82,10,270/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing contribution to DAV Trust Management Society. ITAT No. 1099/JPR/2024

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

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

254/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group companies. Disallowance of contribution to DAV Trust Management Society Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 82,10,270/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing contribution to DAV Trust Management Society. ITAT No. 1099/JPR/2024

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

254/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of\ndisallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group\ncompanies.\nDisallowance of contribution to DAV Trust Management Society\nDepartment has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs.\n82,10,270/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing contribution to\nDAV Trust Management Society.\nITAT No. 1099/JPR/2024

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

254/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of\ndisallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group\ncompanies.\nDisallowance of contribution to DAV Trust Management Society\nDepartment has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs.\n82,10,270/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing contribution to\nDAV Trust Management Society.\nITAT No. 1099/JPR/2024

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

penalty imposable under Chapter XXI is to be initiated and completed within two years.  Action of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act is to be taken within two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. 1.3Even where no limit is prescribed for taking an action under

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(1

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