RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

section 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out in the show cause notice, whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that as far as addition of Rs. 2,79,000/- and of Rs. 10,05,301/- confirmed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(3) must be lifted. Respectfully, following the Judgments of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anupam Tele Services (supra), we direct the AO to delete the disallowance. Thus, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” So far as levy of penalty u/s 271E is concerned, it is stated that such penalty is undoubtedly leviable

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned Counsel

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,43,584/- Net Taxable salary income Rs. 59,24,484/- Rounded off Rs. 59,24,480/- Loss from LTCG of Rs. 18,03,526/- allowed to be carry forward Assessed u/s 143(3)/148 at Rs. 59,24,480/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charge interest u/s 234 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Prepare ITNS-150 which enclosed with

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

2. Disallowance of Interest on TDS 66,466/- 20,25,738/- In order to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind, assessee duly discharged the tax liability arising due to disallowances so made and no appeal was filed. However, penalty proceedings were initiated by ld.AO u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, for “misreporting and under reporting of income

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

2. Disallowance of Interest on TDS 66,466/- 20,25,738/- In order to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind, assessee duly discharged the tax liability arising due to disallowances so made and no appeal was filed. However, penalty proceedings were initiated by ld.AO u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, for “misreporting and under reporting of income

VIKRAM SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(3), assessee offered that its income might be computed by applying net profit rate of 8 per cent of gross receipts – Assessing Officer having accepted assessee’s offer, made addition in terms of section 44AD – He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) – Tribunal, however, set aside said penalty order – Whether since at time to initiating

SHRI VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 40(a)(ia). ITAT 's order cancelling the penalty was sustained by the High Court. 2. CIT v HP State Forest Corporation Ltd. 120121 340 ITR 204(H.P.) In this case the Hon 'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken the view that where assessee discloses the basic facts and does not conceal any material fact, no penalty could

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this case, the assessee company has not deducted TDS at a time of credit to the Associate Business Associates (ABA) Pool account

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 4.3 In ITA No. 1045/JPR/2024 the assessee

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 8) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the charge of Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C. 9) Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 4.3 In ITA No. 1045/JPR/2024 the assessee

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

271 (SC) mentioned that- The AO is not duty bound the state precisely the account of suppressed turnover where it is obvious that the assessee is maintaining false accounts. The assessee cannot plead that it is the duty of the AO to prove conclusively the amount of suppressed turnover, as this fact is in his personal knowledge; ….The burden

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

section 271(1)(c). As a result, there was no clarity whether the\nnotice was for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. He has filed copies of those notices. For his contention,\nassessee has relied on judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

SMT. SWARN DURGIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1326/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke Smt. Swarn Durgia The Ito Vs. 57, Vidyut Abhiyanta Colony Ward- 6(1) Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Ahfpd 9413 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L.Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri K.C. Gupta, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

2) and 142(1) of the Act by the AO, would not be a voluntary disclosure and therefore, the assessee would not release from mischief of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act. Thus the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 2.4 We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant materials

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

271 of the Act. The ld AR has contended that the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) are ex-facie unsustainable in law. The ld AR has then contended that Section 251 of the Act limits power of enhancement of ld. CIT(A) to the aspects considered by the Assessing Officer and not to pickup any new source

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

271 of the Act. The ld AR has contended that the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) are ex-facie unsustainable in law. The ld AR has then contended that Section 251 of the Act limits power of enhancement of ld. CIT(A) to the aspects considered by the Assessing Officer and not to pickup any new source

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

271 of the Act. The ld AR has contended that the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) are ex-facie unsustainable in law. The ld AR has then contended that Section 251 of the Act limits power of enhancement of ld. CIT(A) to the aspects considered by the Assessing Officer and not to pickup any new source