KAUSHLENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceeding u/s 271F and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is hereby initiated. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments in para 4 pages 2 to 7 of the order. The ld. CIT(A) for the reasons

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHRI SHARWAN LAL MEENA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Is A Civil Liability.

penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the claim of benefit under section 54B and 54F disallowed on technical reasons will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. 3. We have heard ld. D/R and carefully perused the relevant material on record. In the quantum

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

penalty imposable under Chapter XXI is to be initiated and completed within two years.  Action of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act is to be taken within two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. 1.3Even where no limit is prescribed for taking an action under

SHRI GHASI RAM GURJAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ao The Bench 1372/Jpr/2019 21-03-2016 Order Passed 03.03.2015 U/S. 147/144 By The Ito, 7(4), Sh. Ghasi Lal Gurjar, Jaipur Vs. Ito, Jaipur Jaipur 1373/Jpr/2019 15-01-2018 Order Passed 30.09.2015 U/S. 271(1)(B) By The Ito, 7(4), Jaipur

271(1)(b) by the ITO, 7(4), Jaipur 2. Since both these appeals are heard together and the issue is inter related and is of the same assessee for same assessment year, is disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 1372/JP/2019, before us on the following grounds

SHRI GHASI LAL GURJAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ao The Bench 1372/Jpr/2019 21-03-2016 Order Passed 03.03.2015 U/S. 147/144 By The Ito, 7(4), Sh. Ghasi Lal Gurjar, Jaipur Vs. Ito, Jaipur Jaipur 1373/Jpr/2019 15-01-2018 Order Passed 30.09.2015 U/S. 271(1)(B) By The Ito, 7(4), Jaipur

271(1)(b) by the ITO, 7(4), Jaipur 2. Since both these appeals are heard together and the issue is inter related and is of the same assessee for same assessment year, is disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 1372/JP/2019, before us on the following grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. BIRMA DEVI, JAIPUR

14. As a result, this appeal filed by the department-Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

54B of the Act, and setting aside of the quantum addition. 3. Arguments heard. File perused. 4. As is available from the penalty order dated 29.03.2019, relating to assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 1,11,10,900/-u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, having arrived at the conclusion that the assessee furnished inaccurate

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)

54B is not sustainable and same is deleted—Assessee appeal allowed. Here the case of the assessee is on much strong footing because ld. AO has not taken any approval at any time. 3. In the following orders also from various benches of ITAT across country remains at idem on impact of in fraction of scope of CBDT instructions dealing

SHRI MADAN LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

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

54B. The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts may kindly be deleted in full. 5.2 Alternatively and without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case not deciding the ground by alleging that the same did not arise from