RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271F, section 271FA, section\n271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section\n272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A)\nof section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

reassessed or recomputed in\na preceding order as if it were the total income; and\nY = the amount of tax calculated on the total income determined under\nclause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or total income assessed\nreassessed or recomputed in a preceding order.\n(11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis

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)

reassessment has to be made in the manner provided in section 153A. Section 153A provides that the AO shall issue the notice requiring to furnish return of income within a period as specified in the notice. The assessee was under the obligation to file the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

reassessed or recomputed in\na preceding order as if it were the total income; and\nY = the amount of tax calculated on the total income determined under\nclause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or total income assessed\nreassessed or recomputed in a preceding order.\n(11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis

RAJASTHAN SHIKSHA SANKUL BHAWAN SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings. Since the assessment orders and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte, the issues were never examined on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["147", "148", "142(1)", "144", "144B", "271(1)(c)", "271(1)(b)", "271F

TEJ SINGH SINSINWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271F for not filing\nof 1 T Return, which was served on the assessee by registered post.\nIt is explicitly stated in the remand report that as per the information available on\nITS received by bank, the assessee had deposited Rs.5,17,980/- on 26.08.2010.\nRelevant para reads as under:\nc.\nd.\nHowever, the finding of the assessing officer noted

SATISH KUMAR SAINI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

271F, and 271(1)(b) of the Act were separately\ninitiated for concealment of income, failure to furnish return within\nprescribed time, and non-compliance with statutory notices, respectively\nby the Ld.AO.\n4. Being aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the\nassessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A)\nafter hearing the contention

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

sections": [ "144", "147", "148", "69B", "148A", "271(1)(c)", "271(1)(b)", "271F", "127", "142(1)", "50C", "54", "2(47)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

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)

271F Failed to furnish return of income as required by section139 before the end of the relevant assessment year. 272A(1) Refused or failed to: (a) Answer questions. (b) Sig. Statements. (c) Attene to give evidence or produce books of accounts etc. in compliance with summons under section 131(1). (d) Apply for allotment of permanent account number in term

LATE KRISHNA GOPAL GUPTA (THR. SON AND LEGAL HEIR SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR GUPTA),JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 2 (1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 250 in name of the deceased. SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL: Ground of Appeal: Ld. CIT(A), has erred in law and on facts in repeating the same non curable judicial mistake (already committed by ld. AO by passing reassessment order and issuing other show-cause notices in name of deceased) in sustaining addition of Rs.10,00,000/- against deceased

RANJIT THAKUR ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

271F r.w.s. 274 of the Income-tax Act,. 1961 is also being issued with this order.” 5.6 In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that the facts and the findings of the AO are incorrect. As stated above no documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the assertions made by appellate in its statement of facts

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)

271F and so on of the 1.T. Act are independent of the quantum appeal and therefore provision of section 275(1)(c) of the Act is applicable and not the provision of section 275(1)(a), if at all the penalty is initiated in the assessment order. The appellant has rightly pointed out that limitation of penalty u/s 271C