RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

80P. The AO initiated penalty proceedings. During penalty proceedings, in compliance to letter dated 19.02.2019 issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted reply dated 25.02.2019 which has been reproduced at page 1 & 2 of the penalty order, as under : “ this is in reference to notice no. DCIT/C-6/JPR/2018-19 dated 19.02.2019. “ 2. That in the computation of the aforesaid assessment year

DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2 Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Dausa. that the ld. AO had wrongly initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, instead of section 270A of the Act which was applicable from 01.04.2017, hence the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144/147 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Appellant prays that the very

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee are exempted from tax. The ld. CIT(A) has granted the relief to the assessee based on the circular of state government and the decision of the apex court is not applicable to the present set of facts. The provision of the Central Act cannot be exempted

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee are exempted from tax. The ld. CIT(A) has granted the relief to the assessee based on the circular of state government and the decision of the apex court is not applicable to the present set of facts. The provision of the Central Act cannot be exempted

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee are exempted from tax. The ld. CIT(A) has granted the relief to the assessee based on the circular of state government and the decision of the apex court is not applicable to the present set of facts. The provision of the Central Act cannot be exempted

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee in support of his claim along with condonation delay application also provided the affidavit as per the law, It is further submitted that even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) could have asked assessee to furnish other

THE KEKRI COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Penalty u/s 271(1)© of Rs.1,01,469/- is bad in law.’’ THE KEKRI COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY VS ITO, WARD 2(3), AJMER 2.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi are as under:- ‘’12. The appellant has failed in explaining the delay in filing the appeal

DAUSA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DAUSA vs. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a amounting of Rs

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by AO, such confirmation being illogical as well as irrelevant hence deserves to be set aside. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) and AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, same being unlawful

DAUSA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DAUSA vs. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a amounting of Rs

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by AO, such confirmation being illogical as well as irrelevant hence deserves to be set aside. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) and AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, same being unlawful