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

FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessed u/s 147 /144B vide order dated 27.03.2023, by the Faceless Assessing officer (FAO) at the Returned Income itself.In other words, all transactionswere found disclosed and the explanations were accepted, and so no unaccounted income /Black money or evasion of tax was found by the FAO.A copy of the assessment order A.Y. 2018-19 is enclosed (As Annexure

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

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

u/s. 271 F of the Act.\nThe quantum appeal is restored back for de-novo adjudication, and the assessee\nis allowed to represent the matter again, but as this matter pertains to non-filing\nof return and there is no relation of this appeal with the restoration of the matter,\nhence confirmed. In above terms, grounds raised by the assessee

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

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

147 was not served upon the assessee. It is also\nrelevant to state that it is not the case where the Id. AO does not have knowledge\nof the address of the registered office of the assessee company as is evident\nfrom the fact that a show cause notice for levy of penalty u/s

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment u/s 148 and notices were issued. In response, the assessee submitted the reply. The details of the notices issued and replied by the assessee were as under: Date of notice Under Issued By Response due dates Reply submitted Section on 09.02.2023 ITO, Pune-13(2) 01.03.2023 22.02.2023 148A 29.03.2023 148 ITO, Pune-13(2) 14.04.2023 11.10.2023 142(1) Faceless

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

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

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

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

147 of the Act at Rs. 3,46,08,520/-. Issued demand notice and challan. Charge interest u/s 234A, u/s 234B, u/s 234C & u/s 234D of the Act. Issued penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of Income determined u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty notice u/s 271F r.w.s. 274 issued for non-compliance

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)

147 of Act, the resultant proceedings cannot be sustained and liable to be set-aside. 10.4 I have considered rival submissions. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that Section 282B of the Act clearly provides for service by post as one of the accepted modes of service of any communication under the Act. The Revenue has issued

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