SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

272A(1)(c) levied by AO is not in accordance with law therefore same is cancelled—Assessee’s appeal of allowed. • Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT v. Anoop Neema vide its order in ITA 05/Ind/2020 dated 06.01.2022 has held: 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue’s sole

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,57,133/-. Penalty u/s 270A, u/s 271AAC. u/s 270A(9)(c), initiated\nseparately for misreporting/under reporting the facts as discussed above. Penalty\nu/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance of statutory notices. Penalty initiation for\nviolation of section

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

68 ITD 1 (PAT.) 1. Penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) Penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) • 2. In the case mentioned above two In the case of Assessee the tax was major issues were addressed: deducted and deposited with the Government well before show • Firstly the assessee had not cause notice. deducted TDS u.s 194 C • The Statement of Return under

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

272A(1)(d), which are not sustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. We find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days each. The assessee

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

272A(1)(d), which are not\nsustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above\ngrounds of appeal at the time of hearing.\"\n3.\nWe find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days\neach. The assessee

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRATEEK KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

d) Lal Chand Agarwal vs. ACIT 21 Tax World 213 Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench has held that to hold a person as benami of another, one ought to have concrete evidences in contrast to sheer presumptions and suspicion and in such cases initial burden lies on revenue ; e) ITO vs. Shree Ladani Family Trust 21 Tax World

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

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

1. That the CIT (A)-III, Jaipur has grossly erred in upholding imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,79,400/- under section 272A(2)(k).” M/s. World Trade Park Ltd., Jaipur. 2. The AO noted that the assessee has defaulted in filing the quarterly statement/return in respect of the TDS on salary payment as well as other payments. Accordingly

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

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

1. That the CIT (A)-III, Jaipur has grossly erred in upholding imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,79,400/- under section 272A(2)(k).” M/s. World Trade Park Ltd., Jaipur. 2. The AO noted that the assessee has defaulted in filing the quarterly statement/return in respect of the TDS on salary payment as well as other payments. Accordingly

SHRI RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

272A having been initiated after a period of more than 6 years were barred by limitation, and also by the 20 Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota. decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar Somani (supra), which had been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Noble Pictures (supra).” In the case in hand

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

272A(1)(c) levied by AO is not in accordance with law therefore same is cancelled—Assessee’s appeal of allowed • Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT v. Anoop Neema vide its order in ITA 05/Ind/2020 dated 06.01.2022 has held: 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue’s sole

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

272A(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, Range for non compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that again an opportunity was provide to the appellant by the AO to explain its case, however, still no compliance was made on the date fixed

MANEESH JOSHI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Shri Maneesh Joshi आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 613/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2018-19 बनाम | The ITO, Vs. Ward-Dausa Dausa Ward No. 24, Jageer (Rural) Bandikui, Baswa Road, Bandikui, Tehsil: Baswa, Dausa-303 313 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGFPJ 8810N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojh

68 of the IT Act, 1961 of the assessee.The tax is being charged u/s. 115BBE of the 1.T.Act, 1961. The Penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the 1.T.Act, 1961 is also been initiated The Penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the I.T.Act.1961 is also being initiated.’’ 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

272A(1)(d) of the Act. In the Form No. 35 of that appeal, the appellant has clearly stated she is a 11 Anshu Sharma vs. ITO housewife and not carrying out any business. Therefore, the maintenance of books is not applicable to the facts of the appellant case and appears to be an afterthought on selection of the case

SHRI SOHAN NATH,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68,944/-. The penalty so imposed by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any other grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing

SUNIL KUMAR NAYAK,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Ld. Ao.

272A(1)(d) of the act. 10. 5. Appellant reserves the right to add/alter/ modify/ delete any or all ground of appeal.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee did not file his ITR for the A.Y. 2018-19. Information in this case was gathered from AIR Information/TAS/26AS details. On the basis