JHALAWAR KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BNAK LTD,JHALAWAR vs. ADL/ADIT (I&CI), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

271 days (01.06.2019 to 26.02.2020). Accordingly penalty levied u/s. 271FA of the I.T. Act, 1961 is calculated as under:- For 242 days (01.06.2019 to 28.01.2020) @ 500/- per day Rs.1,21,000/- For 29 days (29.01.2020 to 26.02.2020) @ 1000/- per day Rs. 29,000/- Total Rs. 1,50,000/- In first appeal the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by observing

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)

272A(1) Refused or failed to: (a) Answer questions. (b) Sig. Statements. (c) Attene to give evidence or produce books of accounts etc. in compliance with summons under section 131(1). (d) Apply for allotment of permanent account number in term sof Section 139A. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 21-03-2014 at Room

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

272A(1)(c) levied by AO is not in accordance with law therefore same is cancelled—Assessee’s appeal of allowed. • Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT v. Anoop Neema vide its order in ITA 05/Ind/2020 dated 06.01.2022 has held: 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue’s sole

SHRI SOHAN NATH,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

e-filed its return of income, therefore, if the income from liquor business would have been declared in the original return of income then, as per the Income Tax Rules the audit report was also required to be annexed along with the return of income. However, the assessee did not disclose income from liquor business and consequently has also stated

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

e-filed by the assessee on 30/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 1,96,910/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer has passed assessment order U/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 2 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO assessed total income of the assessee

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

272A(1)(c) levied by AO is not in accordance with law therefore same is cancelled—Assessee’s appeal of allowed • Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT v. Anoop Neema vide its order in ITA 05/Ind/2020 dated 06.01.2022 has held: 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue’s sole

EFY THECHNOLOGIES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 5(4), JPR, JAIPUR

Appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes

Bench: Ld. Cit(A), The Assessment Order Dated

2. Further, penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC of the Act in respect of unexplained income is initiated. As discussed in the body of the Order, the assessee firm has failed to comply with the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act issued and served upon the assessee during the course of E-scrutiny proceedings, penalty u/s 272A

JEENKRIPA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED,VAISHALI NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

271 AAC of the Act in respect of unexplained income is initiated. As discussed in the body of the order, the assessee company has failed to comply with the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act issued and served upon the assessee during the course of E-scrutiny proceedings, penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act is also initiated

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

SUNIL KUMAR NAYAK,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Ld. Ao.

271(1)(c) as well as sec 271AAC of the act. 9. 4. On facts and in circumstances ld.AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the act. 10. 5. Appellant reserves the right to add/alter/ modify/ delete any or all ground of appeal.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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 in nature. The\ninterest charges are not sustainable once the additions