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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) or clause (c) of sub- section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.] Regarding the judgment of Hon’ble Bench in the case of Airen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)© 9 Smt.Swarn Durgia vs ITO, Ward- 6(1), Jaipur of the Act. Thus no penalty shall be levied u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

S R AUTOMOBILES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated separately on this issue. 5. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:- “5.1 In Grounds of Appeal

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

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

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD, 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

40A(2)(b). However, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal allowed the rate of interest on such loan taken from Shri Udai Kant Mishra to the extent of 14%. Even ld. CIT(A), in the preceding years, did not make any disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) and accepted the loan to have been utilized for the purpose of business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

2. That the Ld CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating this ground whereas Id. AO has grossly erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.3,98,12,270/- and Rs.3,35,33,211/ u/s 68, without any incriminating material found during the course of search at the premises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

2. That the Ld CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating this ground whereas Id. AO has grossly erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.3,98,12,270/- and Rs.3,35,33,211/ u/s 68, without any incriminating material found during the course of search at the premises