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 proceeding and it may be treated as compliance of notice issue previously. 7.2 We are of the view that the AO had levied the penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for non compliance

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 proceeding and it may be treated as compliance of notice issue previously. 7.2 We are of the view that the AO had levied the penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for non compliance

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, therefore, we thought it fit to dispose off all the grounds by this consolidated order. 9. The ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the written submissions submitted before him which are reproduced below: With

M/S. BANARSI MARBLE STONE PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

penalty was initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice placed at page no. 1 of the assessee's compilation read as under: To, The Director, M/s Shree Banarsi Marble Stone Pvt. Ltd. SP-2, Udyog Vihar, Sukher, Udaipur PAN: AACCS1969D Sir, Please refer to this office notice dated 30.03.2015 issued u/s. 274 read with section

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

10,0007- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The appellant has discussed some decisions which were not on the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) but on validity of assessment made under section

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

10,0007- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The appellant has discussed some decisions which were not on the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) but on validity of assessment made under section

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

10,0007- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The appellant has discussed some decisions which were not on the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) but on validity of assessment made under section

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

10,0007- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The appellant has discussed some decisions which were not on the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) but on validity of assessment made under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

10 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. We may also submit that penalty proceeding u/s 271D/E for contravention of provision of section 269SS and 269T are not related to assessment proceedings or other proceedings, during which penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E might have been initiated, has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining penalty proceedings, and therefore, clause

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.

section 144 of the Act and passed the order u/s 144 r.w. 147 of the Act. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1

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

10. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer while imposing the penalty had not specifically mentioned that the assessee had concealed the income or furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer while imposing penalty u/s 271

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

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

271(1)(c) because ITAT in assessee’s own case has deleted the addition of Rs. 10 Crore made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the Ld. CIT(A’s) order is as under:- “(i) The appellant has submitted that the addition of Rs. 10 crore has been deleted by the ITAT Jodhpur

SHRI THAKUR CHAPLOT,RAJSAMAND vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Thakur Chaplot Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Pan: Aappc9323H Income-Tax, Circle-2, C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Kar 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Bhawan, Sub-City 5Th B Road,Sardrpura, Centre,Saveena,Udaipur Jodhpur (Raj)-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

SHRI SHIV SINGH CHOUHAN,RAJSAMAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Shiv Singh Chouhan Vs Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate, Income-Tax, Circle-2, 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Udaipur, Rajasthan 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Pan: Cifps9604M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

SHRI SARAFRAJ AHMED ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Sarfaraj Ahmed Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward- Pan: Afypa8123R 1(4), Udaipur, Rajasthan- C/O Shrawan Kumar Gupta, 313001. Advocate, 416, Surya Chamber Radio Market, Nehru Bazar, Jaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

SHRI AMAR SINGH JAIN ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1 B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued, under Section 274 without taking

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief