VIKRAM ANJANA,PRATAPGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainishri Vikram Anjana, Vs The Acit, Vill - Kesunda, Circle-Chittorgarh Tehsil Chhotisadri, Pratapgarh (Raj.) 312604

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was engaged in money lending business

SHRINATH PRODUCTS,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Shrinath Products Vs. Ito. Ward 1(1), A.M.Mehta & Co, Udaipur, 6-B, Bapu Bazar, Rajasthan. Udaipur.-313001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfs9840Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 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)(Cit(A)-1,Udaipur Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax (Act), 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS WRONGLY IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(b) FOR Rs 10000/- Shrinath Products, Udaipur. 2. WITHOUT ANY DACIC THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 NO NOTICE WAS SERVED TO THE Assessee BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 3. THAT IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATE OF DEFOULT FOR NON COMPLIANCE WAS NOT MENTAIONED FOR WHICH PENALTY WAS IMPOSED

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

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.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied for disallowance of claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- as remuneration to partners on the basis of original return of income. However, on rectification of the mistake which was allowed by the Tribunal, the computation of income of the firm stands as under: Income from Business

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.

u/s 274 r/w 271(1)(c) of the Act, is quite vague and did not at all specify which limb of Section 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

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)

business. It was further submitted that there was no rejection of books of account, nor any independent evidence or material unearthed during the survey to indicate suppression of income. The surrender was made to buy peace and avoid estimation and disputes. 3.2 The Ld. AR further contended that the penalty order fails to specify whether the penalty is being levied

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)

business. It was further submitted that there was no rejection of books of account, nor any independent evidence or material unearthed during the survey to indicate suppression of income. The surrender was made to buy peace and avoid estimation and disputes. 3.2 The Ld. AR further contended that the penalty order fails to specify whether the penalty is being levied

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)

business. It was further submitted that there was no rejection of books of account, nor any independent evidence or material unearthed during the survey to indicate suppression of income. The surrender was made to buy peace and avoid estimation and disputes. 3.2 The Ld. AR further contended that the penalty order fails to specify whether the penalty is being levied

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)

business. It was further submitted that there was no rejection of books of account, nor any independent evidence or material unearthed during the survey to indicate suppression of income. The surrender was made to buy peace and avoid estimation and disputes. 3.2 The Ld. AR further contended that the penalty order fails to specify whether the penalty is being levied

SMT. BHAWANA NAGORI,BHILWARA. vs. ITO, WARD-5, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.

u/s 274 of the Act which does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) erred in sustaining penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- under the provision of section

NEERAJ RANGWANI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes as per direction mentioned above

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

business and his income is mainly in the form of commission. The assessee also submitted that he does not need to maintain any books of accounts as assessee has Income on presumptive basis u/s 44AD. 4. In the aforesaid order, the AO issued notice to the assessee and re- adjudicated the matter. The relevant part of the assessment order

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

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

business. It was further submitted\nthat there was no rejection of books of account, nor any independent evidence or\nmaterial unearthed during the survey to indicate suppression of income. The surrender\nwas made to buy peace and avoid estimation and disputes.\n3.2 The Ld. AR further contended that the penalty order fails to specify whether the\npenalty is being levied

MEWAR MIN CHEM PVT. LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-5, BHILWARA

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

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

271 AAC of the Act in respect of unexplained income is initiated. The assessee has not filed its Return of Income for AY 2017-18, therefore, penalty u/s 271E of the Act is also initiated for failure to furnish return of income. Assessed u/s.144 of the Income tax Act, 1961 at total Income of Rs.11,74,800/-. Calculation

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground of appeal does not have any merit, as no prejudice is caused to the assessee on mere initiation of penalty proceedings Penalty proceedings are separate proceedings and levying of penalty is not automatic after its initiation. Therefore, this ground of appeal is pre- mature and the same is hereby dismissed” 6. Against

RAJESH KALRA,HANUMANGARH TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BIKANER

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoterajesh Kalra, Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1, Prop. M/S. Zodiac Bikaner – 334001, Imaging & Diagnostic Rajasthan. Centre, Hanumangarh -335513, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Akapk9599E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Cit(A) & Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

business of providing services and health care services. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 on 28.02.2015 disclosing a total income of Rs. 57,60,353/-.There was a survey u/s 133A of the Act conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered the facts of survey operations and issued

JAISALMER CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,JAISALMER vs. ITO WARD-1, BARMER

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

penalty of Rs. 16,90,138/- imposed by the Id. AO under S. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 because no hearing notice u/s 250(1) was issued to the appellant to put forward its case. Therefore, the appellate order so passed is patently against the provisions of S. 250(1) and 250(2) of the Income

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Us.

business of the assessee is being mentioned. The assessee is proprietor in M/s Navkar Traders, Dhan Mandi, Sangaria and the main source of income is commission income from trading of agriculture commodities. The farmers and producers bring their agriculture produce to the assessee which is being sold by the assessee. The sale of such agriculture produce is mainly made

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