M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

TDS | 15,65,426 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\nDisallowance of CSR Expenses\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nRs.40,42,000/-\nRs.37,19,337/-\n\nAfter the order of Hon'ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to\nshow cause why penalty u/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 153A: 8.1 In Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that: “…………. Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS provisions. Pertinently thus, tax was already deducted/paid\ninitially.\n2.2 A notice u/s 133(6) dated 12.03.2018 (PB 2) was issued to the assessee\nwhereby, certain information in support of the deduction claimed u/s 80U was\nrequired from the assessee (but, there is no mention of deductions claimed u/s\n80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS provisions. Pertinently thus, tax was already deducted/paid\ninitially.\n2.2 A notice u/s 133(6) dated 12.03.2018 (PB 2) was issued to the assessee\nwhereby, certain information in support of the deduction claimed u/s 80U was\nrequired from the assessee (but, there is no mention of deductions claimed u/s\n80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS provisions. Pertinently thus, tax was already deducted/paid\ninitially.\n2.2 A notice u/s 133(6) dated 12.03.2018 (PB 2) was issued to the assessee\nwhereby, certain information in support of the deduction claimed u/s 80U was\nrequired from the assessee (but, there is no mention of deductions claimed u/s\n80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS provisions. Pertinently thus, tax was already deducted/paid\ninitially.\n2.2 A notice u/s 133(6) dated 12.03.2018 (PB 2) was issued to the assessee\nwhereby, certain information in support of the deduction claimed u/s 80U was\nrequired from the assessee (but, there is no mention of deductions claimed u/s\n80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS provisions. Pertinently thus, tax was already deducted/paid\ninitially.\n2.2 A notice u/s 133(6) dated 12.03.2018 (PB 2) was issued to the assessee\nwhereby, certain information in support of the deduction claimed u/s 80U was\nrequired from the assessee (but, there is no mention of deductions claimed u/s\n80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 153A: 5.1 In Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal 2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that: “Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.153A:\nIn Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that:\n\"Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.153A:\nIn Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi), it was held that:\n\"Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return\nfiled by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the\nprevious return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) w.r. thereto We may clarify that revision of income was not at all necessitated because of the issuance of the notice u/s 143(2) on dated 18.08.2010 (refer AO order u/s 143(3) Pg-1) because there was no specific query raised by the AO upto that point of time so as to make

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

TDS u/s 195 of the Act in clause 34(a) tax audit report Form 3CD. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT observed that the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271AA of the Act which is 2% of unreported transactions (i.e. 2% of Rs.7,47,84,363/- = Rs.14,95,687/-) but the FAO has failed to initiate and levy such

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

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

TDS was deducted, therefore the amount of Rs.11,51,362/- was disallowed u/s 7 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee and thus penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

penalty u/s. 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

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271 and 273 were the two original penalty provisions, which require the penalty proceedings to be initiated during the course of relevant assessment proceedings or the other relevant proceedings, as the case may be. The penalty proceedings could also be initiated during the appellate proceedings arising out of the relevant assessment proceedings. It is only where the assessment proceedings

DCIT,INT.TAX, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 by allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the findings of the AO that the assessee has not submitted any reply during the penalty proceedings? II. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in admitting

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 by allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the findings of the AO that the assessee has not submitted any reply during the penalty proceedings? II. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in admitting

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 :

TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer be levied.” Operative part of the judgment supra is extracted for ready perusal as under :- "2. The matter was pursued by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2006 entered the following findings: "11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the instant case

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 :

TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer be levied.” Operative part of the judgment supra is extracted for ready perusal as under :- "2. The matter was pursued by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2006 entered the following findings: "11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the instant case