RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) Padam Chand Pungliya ITA No. 112/JP/2018 (viii) Vimal Chand Surana ITA No. 304/JP/2018. (ix) RajendraKumar Jain dated 14.09.20. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R relied on the order of the AO. He submitted that the penalty was rightly levied on account of unexplained cash, unexplained jewellery and unexplained valuables found at the premises of the assessee

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c) had been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore no penalty could be levied. (ii) Poonam Mable Pvt Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 157 TTJ 59 (Jodh) (iIi) CIT Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

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

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” o13 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” o13 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” o13 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

M/S SILVER AND ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

271(1) are initiated by the assessing authority during the course of the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3), the impugned penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB are fully justified and are initiated in accordance with law. We find that the order of the ITAT cannot sustain, therefore, the same is set aside and the penalty orders under Section 271AAB

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also\ninitiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on\naccount of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.\n013\nITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024\nChambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also\ninitiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on\naccount of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.\n013\nITA No. 1090, 1097 ΤΟ 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024\nChambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

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)

36 times during year - Considering assessee's act to be in violation of section 269SS, Assessing Officer imposed penalty upon assessee under section 271D - Tribunal found that there was business exigency forcing assessee to take cash loans for purpose of honouring its cheque commitments; creditors were genuine persons and transactions were satisfactorily explained by assessee; and there was no revenue

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)

271(1)(c) was initiated by the Id. AO in order u/s. 143(3). The first appeal of the assessee was dismissed (P.B. pages 15 to 23) whereas the second appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT was partly allowed (P.B. pages 24 to 35) with direction to allow deduction @ 100% under section 10A of Act on enhanced profit

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

vii) Section 245HA of the Act does not hold that offer of additional income u/s 245C(1) is a conclusive proof or that AO shall presume the offer as unaccounted income. (viii) Offer of income for settlement is not more than an information for the purpose of assessment and it cannot be lawfully presumed as undisclosed income of assessee without

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest of justice.” (Ground wise submissions are as follows) After discussing the brief facts of the case and grounds of appeal, the appellant very humbly and respectfully begs to submit

M/S BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK , AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court, Jaipur To Recall/Review Its Order Dated 24.04.2018 Disposing Off The Appeal Of The Revenue Without Going Into The Merits.”

271(1)(c) with respect to the disallowance of capital loss of Rs. 7,000/- is hereby confirmed.” Thus, it is clear that the penalty levied by the AO in respect of provision for standard asset has been deleted by the CIT(A) because the addition itself was deleted by this Tribunal in the quantum appeal

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)

36,00,008/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) but maintained balance addition of Rs. 22,81,215/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee is not in appeal against maintenance of remaining addition of Rs. 22,81,215/-. But as regards assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80G at Rs. ACIT vs. Nash Fashion (India) Ltd. 1

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)

36,00,008/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) but maintained balance addition of Rs. 22,81,215/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee is not in appeal against maintenance of remaining addition of Rs. 22,81,215/-. But as regards assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80G at Rs. ACIT vs. Nash Fashion (India) Ltd. 1