MR. MANOJ KUMAR GOUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271B ought not to have been levied because the assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of account as has been recorded in the assessment order itself. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty. 4. As regards the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.7.50 lac, we find that this addition

LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

271B ought not to have been levied because the assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of account as has been recorded in the assessment order itself. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty. 4. As regards the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.7.5o lac, we find that this addition

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)© : Concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 271A : Failed to keep, maintain, or retain books of accounts, documents etc. as required u/s 44AA. 271B : Failed to get the accounts audited or obtain audit report as required under section 44AB or furnish such report alongwith return under section 139(1) or in response to notice under

UMA MANDAL ,JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

271(1)(c), Uma Mandal vs. ITO wherein, the penalty is directly linked to the quantum of addition. The penalty under consideration is U/s 271A which is not directly linked to the addition made in the assessment order. The penalty is leviable irrespective of the addition made and if the assessee was required to maintain books of accounts u/s 44AA

UMA MANDAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

271(1)(c), Uma Mandal vs. ITO wherein, the penalty is directly linked to the quantum of addition. The penalty under consideration is U/s 271A which is not directly linked to the addition made in the assessment order. The penalty is leviable irrespective of the addition made and if the assessee was required to maintain books of accounts u/s 44AA

FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271B , section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, 25[section 271FAA,] section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, 26[section 271GC,]section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section

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

ANIRUDH BAHETI HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271-B of the Act and imposed the penalty. In view of the discussion above, the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- imposed under section 271B of the Act is upheld. All the Grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 5 are dismissed.” 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record and also carefully gone through

RAJESH KUMAR BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

penalty of Rs.25000/- u/s 271A of the Act.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that at the time of hearing of these appeals by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide his order dated 09-06-2023 and 07- 06-2023 and 9-06-2023 has dismissed the appeals in the matter of Section 271(1)(c) 271B

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

271B, section 271BA, section\n271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section\n271FA, section 271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-\nsection (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-\nsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

271B, section 271BA, section\n271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section\n271FA, section 271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-\nsection (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-\nsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section

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.

section 44AA and 44AB therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271A and 271B are being initiated. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated

RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section\n271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section\n271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section\n272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A)\nof section 272BB or sub-section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove

271(1)(b) of the Act)\n| बनाम\n| The ACIT\n| Shri Shailendra Garg\n| Vs.\n| Circle-6\n| Chak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur,\n| Ganganagar - 335 027\n| Jaipur\n| स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E\n| प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\n| अपीलार्थी / Appellant\n\nआयकरअपीलसं. / ITA Nos.1558 /JP/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16\n(Penalty Appeal u/s

ANIL KUMAR TANWAR,BHIWADI vs. ITO BHIWADI, BHIWADI

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

Bench: Nfac/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), But The Nfac Has Failed To Consider It & Passed The Order On Dated 20.11.2023 & Dismiss The Appeal Which Deserved To Be Accepted.

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward- Bhiwadi, Alwar. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. ITO “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee has submitted the document before NFAC/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), but the NFAC has failed to consider

PHOOL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-W-(106)(2), JAIPUR

271B of the Act for an amount of Rs. 40,000/-.\nAggrieved from that levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.\nCIT(A) who is also not favour to the assessee and confirmed the levy of penalty by\nholding as under:-\n\" I have carefully considered the ground of appeal, statement of facts of the case