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)

2) or failed to comply with a direction, under section 142(2A).  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

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)

k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 31-07-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

272A FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WITH NOTICES,\nCONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC.\n(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings\nunder this Act, is satisfied that any person\n(a) (Omitted)\n(b) Has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or\nsub-section (2

SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

k@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM The appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 18-12-2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

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

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.

k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC Delhi dated 24.06.2022 for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The impugned penalty order u/s 271FA dated 20.10.2020 as well as the notice u/s 271FA is bad in law, illegal

SH. PUNEET NARANG,BHARATPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: AO in response to notice issued under section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act however, default was same and, therefore penalty of Rs.10,000 could be imposed for first default made by the appellant in this regard only. As penalty under section 272A(1) (d) could not be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 143 (2), that remained not complied with, on the part of the appellant. The provisions of section 272A (1) (d) are of deterrent in nature and not for earning revenue, therefo

k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 16-04-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 raising following solitary ground of appeal. ‘’The ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

k@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 27.08.2018 for Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein the assessee bank has challenged the sustenance of penalty levied by the AO U/s 271C of the I.T. Act. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that

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

k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Present appeal has been filed because the assessee is feeling aggrieved by an order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhidated 31/03/2024 [here in after (NFAC)/ Ld. CIT(A)]. It has arisen from the impugned order passed while dismissing first appeal by the assessee before Learned CIT(A), which appeal was filed

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.08.2017 of the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer arising from penalty order passed U/s 271B of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The impugned penalty order u/s 271B of the Act dated

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

k@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I Jaipur dated 30/09/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of precious and semi precious stones. The return of income was e-filed by the assessee on 30/09/2011 declaring total income

MANEESH JOSHI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Shri Maneesh Joshi आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 613/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2018-19 बनाम | The ITO, Vs. Ward-Dausa Dausa Ward No. 24, Jageer (Rural) Bandikui, Baswa Road, Bandikui, Tehsil: Baswa, Dausa-303 313 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGFPJ 8810N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojh

k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 27-03-2025 [hereinafter referred as “(CIT(A)/NFAC” ] for the assessment years 2018-19 in the matter of Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus raising therein

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

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)

k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These are two appeals filed by the assessee against two separate orders of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 24.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2017-18 and 18- 19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- Govindam

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

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

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