POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from these different order for levy of penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: Finding of ld. CIT(A) for penalty u/s. 271F

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from these different order for levy of penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: Finding of ld. CIT(A) for penalty u/s. 271F

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)

Penalty Notice Under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income – Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur PAN:ABUPS0573B Date: 04-03-2014 Shri Dhanraj Sethia 1013, Mishra Rajaji Ka Rasta Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the A.Y. 2012-13, it appears

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)

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 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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 (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section(1) or sub-section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

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 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section

KALPANA JHALA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

section 282 of the Income Tax Act.1961 read with Rule 127 of the - Income Tax Rules, 1961, service of notice through email on the email address at available in return of income or last income tax return is a valid service On going through the penalty order it emerges that the notices have been issued online on ITBA with proper

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

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

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 (1) of section 272BBB or\nclause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause

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

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

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 (1) of section 272BBB or\nclause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271F and so on of the 1.T. Act are independent of the quantum appeal and therefore provision of section 275(1)(c) of the Act is applicable and not the provision of section 275(1)(a), if at all the penalty is initiated in the assessment order. The appellant has rightly pointed out that limitation of penalty u/s 271C

SAKKU DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271F whereas the Ld. ITO has not given notice u/s 274 rws 271 to impose the penalty as show cause. 6. That the appellant in this sale deed, was only involved as a confirming party, who confirm the sale without any making claim on the sold agricultural land. In other words, it was only a declaration that" I confirm

BHANWARI DEVI,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

271(1)(b) dated 26.12.2018 was not received by the assessee. Since, the notices were never been served on the assessee, the notices are invalid and imposing penalty for invalid notices is not as per law. Assessee received a penalty order u/s 271F dated 28.05.2019 first time for AY 2011-12. Assessee did not receivedany notice or assessment order

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

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

u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of\nCorruption Act, 1988, and 120B,420, 467, 468 and 471IPC. He further\nsubmitted that there was a lack of advice of his counsel M/s. Singhal Jain\n&Co. who engaged to solve all the tax matters and for this reason the\nassessee had to suffer

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause

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

BEEKAU BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

25. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

271F of the Act, due to non filing of return, has been dismissed. 6. Coming to this third mentioned appeal, same has been filed challenging impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee challenging levy of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- by the Assessing Officer on 09.02.2022, u/s 271

BEEKAU BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

25. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

271F of the Act, due to non filing of return, has been dismissed. 6. Coming to this third mentioned appeal, same has been filed challenging impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee challenging levy of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- by the Assessing Officer on 09.02.2022, u/s 271

BEEKAU BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

25. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

271F of the Act, due to non filing of return, has been dismissed. 6. Coming to this third mentioned appeal, same has been filed challenging impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Learned CIT(A), NFAC, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee challenging levy of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- by the Assessing Officer on 09.02.2022, u/s 271