RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty so levied is unjustified both in law and on facts. It was submitted that the assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income during the course of the assessment proceedings and before completion of assessment, merely

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCITL CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty so levied is unjustified both in law and on facts. It was submitted that the assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income during the course of the assessment proceedings and before completion of assessment, merely

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty so levied is unjustified both in law and on facts. It was submitted that the assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income during the course of the assessment proceedings and before completion of assessment, merely

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the penalty so levied is unjustified both in law and on facts. It was submitted that the assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income during the course of the assessment proceedings and before completion of assessment, merely

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c) holding that not to tick correct limb of the notice regarding\nconcealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income, renders the notice and\nconsequential proceedings as invalid and void, was confirmed by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows. Copy of notice u/s\n148 is enclosed-2.\n(2)\nThat

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground of appeal is therefore dismissed as not maintainable. In the result appeal is partly allowed. (Vandana Verma) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-2) Udaipur ITA No. 10181/2018-19 Α.Υ. 2016-17 Date:22:07:2019 Copy to the 1. The Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Rajasthan

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

c) Copy of ledger account reflecting that during the year under consideration, the assessee has obtained loan of Rs. 25,50,000/-. In addition to this, there is opening balance as on 1/4/2016 of Rs.42,00,000/-. It is the submission of the assessee that the opening balance of Rs. 42,00,000/- has remained undisturbed and stands accepted. Therefore