DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. SMT. PALLAVI MISHRA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the additional grounds of appeal as well as original ground of appeal no

246A(1)(a) of the Act where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under the Act, he can prefer appeal to the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the assessee had preferred the present appeal within time allowed under the law. 10. Regarding fourth additional ground of appeal taken by the Revenue, it was submitted that the said ground

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment notice is required to be issued by an Assessing Officer having proper jurisdiction over the assessee to whom such notice has been issued. Based on the evidence placed on record and after giving sufficient time to the revenue to rebut the contention based on the set of evidence placed on record, but revenue could not demonstrate that when

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment notice is required to be issued by an Assessing Officer having proper jurisdiction over the assessee to whom such notice has been issued. Based on the evidence placed on record and after giving sufficient time to the revenue to rebut the contention based on the set of evidence placed on record, but revenue could not demonstrate that when

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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)

reassessment proceedings initiated against him were unjustified - Held, yes [Para 18] [In favour of assessee 18. Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner as well as the observations made by the respondent-Assessing Officer in the impugned order passed under section 148A(d)wherein, it is not disputed that the petitioner is working

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

246A and 80P, of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Commissioner (Appeals) - Form of appeal and limitation (Condonation of delay) - Assessing Officer disallowed deduction claimed by assessee under section 80P - Assessee against impugned order filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 11 days and sought condonation of delay in filing appeal stating that delay was due to non-availability

SHRI HARI RAM YADAV,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

246A of the Act against the order passed by the AO U/s 143(3) dated 28.03.2016. It was accordingly submitted that where the assessment order was the 5 Shri Hari Ram Yadav vs. Pr.CIT subject matter of appeal before the ld CIT(A), the ld. Pr. CIT was wrong in assuming the jurisdiction over such matter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. POONIA WINES, JAIPUR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

reassessment has been challenged. Hence, this addition of the Assessing Officer is confirmed. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 7. The Revenue is aggrieved from the findings of the ld. CIT(A) preferred this appeal and since the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, the assessee has also preferred cross objection. 8. Since the issue in the appeal

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

246A of the IT Act, before the ld. CIT, (Appeals) which got transferred to NFAC, Delhi in 11 Ram Niwas Yadav vs. ITO pursuance to Notification no. 76/2020/F.N. 3701142/33/2020/TPL dated 25.09.2020. 7. That, assessee submitted its written submissions dated 16.01.2019 along with supporting documents in the said appeal and further submitted an application dated 09.02.2019 under Rule

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

246A w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that it is discretionary and not mandatory to give relief to the assessee where the authorities have not used their 7 Shri Ritesh Agarwal, Jaipur. discretion to provide relief to the assessee. It is settled position of law that penalties are not compulsory, not mandatory but are always discretionary considering the overall facts and circumstances

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

246A w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that it is discretionary and not mandatory to give relief to the assessee where the authorities have not used their discretion to provide relief to the assessee. It is settled position of law 8 Shri Suresh Chand Mittal, Jaipur. that penalties are not compulsory, not mandatory but are always discretionary considering the overall facts and circumstances

ANUJ MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

246A w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that it is discretionary and not mandatory to give relief to the assessee where the authorities have not used their discretion to provide relief to the assessee. It is settled position of law that penalties are not compulsory, not mandatory but are always discretionary considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. In imposition of penalty

SHRI RAVI MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

246A w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that it is discretionary and not mandatory to give relief to the assessee where the authorities have not used their discretion to provide relief to the assessee. It is settled position of law that penalties are not compulsory, not mandatory but are always discretionary considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. In imposition of penalty

VIJAY PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 144/147 of Income tax Act but not received by him. Assessee received copy of reassessment order on 15.10.2019 through mailing address of his ld. A/R. against which appeal under sec. 246A