SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience,ITA No. 111/Jodh/2023 is taken

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience,ITA No. 111/Jodh/2023 is taken

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience,ITA No. 111/Jodh/2023 is taken

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience,ITA No. 111/Jodh/2023 is taken

SANGRAM RAM,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act that the appeal of the assessee against the addition has been accepted and requested to drop the penalty

SANGRAM RAM,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act that the appeal of the assessee against the addition has been accepted and requested to drop the penalty

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Similarly, in the printed notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A, it is essential to tick the applicable part in printed penalty notice and strike off inapplicable part in printed penalty notice. Thus, if penalty is initiated only for under reporting of income

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

addition to total income was pt justified. As discussed in Para- 5.6 above, the A. O has in fact not made any adjustments to Total Income after estimation of business profits. The foregoing argument of the assessee is therefore irrelevant 8. The fourth ground of appeal is as under- "The Ld. AO has erred in charging interest u/s 234A

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)

additional income declared and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), are summarised as under: Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Original Return 30.09.12 29.09.13 28.11.14 30.9.15 17.10.16 filed on 4 Income Declared 4773180 5593450 5789180 6030920 7237690 Return filed u/s

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)

additional income declared and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), are summarised as under: Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Original Return 30.09.12 29.09.13 28.11.14 30.9.15 17.10.16 filed on 4 Income Declared 4773180 5593450 5789180 6030920 7237690 Return filed u/s

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)

additional income declared and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), are summarised as under: Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Original Return 30.09.12 29.09.13 28.11.14 30.9.15 17.10.16 filed on 4 Income Declared 4773180 5593450 5789180 6030920 7237690 Return filed u/s

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)

additional income declared and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), are summarised as under: Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Original Return 30.09.12 29.09.13 28.11.14 30.9.15 17.10.16 filed on 4 Income Declared 4773180 5593450 5789180 6030920 7237690 Return filed u/s

VIRENDRA SINGH RATHORE ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad50/Jodh/2020 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Shri Virendra Singh Rathore Vs The Ito 130, Road No. 5, Subhash Nagar Ward 1(1) Distt. Udaipur (Raj) Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amfpr 9675 K

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 50/Jodh/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2015-16) Shri Virendra Singh Rathore Vs The ITO 130, Road No. 5, Subhash Nagar Ward 1(1) Distt. Udaipur (Raj) Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AMFPR 9675 K Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

additions. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that during the F.Y. 2010-11, the assessee in violation of provisions of section 269T of the IT Act, 1961 has repaid in cash loan amounting to Rs. 60,000/- to Shri Sanjay Vyas.The explanation furnished by the assessee in this respect was considered by the AO but was not acceptable

CHAMPA LAL MEHTA ,SANCHORE vs. ITO WARD-2, JALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

addition is sustained on the\nestimated basis no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied.\n3. It is evident from the record that the AO failed to prove the concealment\nof income

M/S. THE CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S.The Central Vs. The Acit, Circle Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara. Mahendra Gargieya & Rajasthan. Associates, Adv , No537-538,5Thfloor, Mahimatrinity, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302019, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat8126B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. 1.The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 18.05.2017 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same Kindly Be Quashed.

271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned penalty based on such a notice being contrary to the provisions of law & facts kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter

MAHENDRA SINGH DHARAMPAL & CO.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemahendra Singh Dharampal & Acit Circle 2, Co Udaipur - 313001 15-18, Diamond Plazza, Hiran Magri Sect 5, Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aadfm 9764 A Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Revenue By Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Udaipur Dated 19.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 1,54,500/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ao.

income. Assessment was completed u/s 144 read with Section 113 of the Act vide order dated 16th March, 2014 with the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by disallowing remuneration paid to partners. 3. In the present case thus, the penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI CHUTRA RAM CHOUDHARY,BARMER vs. DC, CEN CIR-1,, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case that the assessee has not filed the return of income