NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

271(1)(c) is not automatic. He submitted that there is no positive material to demonstrate that the assessee has made willful attempt to conceal the income and furnish the inaccurate particular of income. He submitted that there must be an independent finding to this effect as held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Durga

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) in respect of erroneous claim of deduction under s. 10B.” 9.7Also refer Shri NandkumarBhalchandraBhondve in ITA No.943/PN/2014 dated 17.08.2016. 10. In any case if the contention of the ld. CIT is accepted that the AO always wanted to initiate under a correct provision of law but he committed an inadvertent error. Even assuming so then

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

271(1)(c)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the addition was made by the Learned\nAssessing officer by adopting the stamp duty of Sub-registrar where\nthe assessee has not concealed any income.\n3. The appellant begs permission to add amend or alter any of the\ngrounds of appeal before the hearing of appeal.\"\n3.\nSince both

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case