SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

3 times of the cost, the profit is worked out as under:- Sale consideration, as per 2 sale deeds of Rs.16.10lacs Each Rs. 32,20,000/- Estimated cost, 1/3 (in round figures) Rs. 10,75,000/- Profit Rs. 21,45,000/-" 12. During the course of hearing of appeal the A.R of the appellant agreed to the estimation of business

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

10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious manner while confirming the penalty u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act, I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 3 Assessment Years

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

10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious manner while confirming the penalty u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act, I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 3 Assessment Years

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

10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious manner while confirming the penalty u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act, I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 3 Assessment Years

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

10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious manner while confirming the penalty u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act, I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 3 Assessment Years

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

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

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.

3. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted penalty under section 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

3 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. DR stated that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) , after relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of ITO, TDS Ajmer vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (ITA No. 358- 360/JP/2023) ,is not in accordance with law as the revenue is appeal against that order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

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

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

3 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. DR stated that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) , after relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of ITO, TDS Ajmer vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (ITA No. 358- 360/JP/2023) ,is not in accordance with law as the revenue is appeal against that order

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

SHRI PRAKASH MODI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteprakash Chand Modi Vs. Acit, Cir-1, D-128, Shastrinagar, Jodhpur, Jodhpur-342003, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Rpan/Gir No. : Adqpm6554J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 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 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 271(1)(b) amounting Rs 10,000 which is bad in law and bad on facts. Prakash Chand Modi. Jodhpur. 4 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary from the above the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was issued

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

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JODHPUR vs. PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT, PALI

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

3) without giving benefit of sec. 12A. The Assessing Officer stated that the assessee neither the got approval u/s 12AA of the Act during the relevant A.Y nor any assessment proceedings was pending during the date of registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Hence, the assessee trust is not entitled to benefit of sec. 11&12 and the claim

PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT,PALI vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

3) without giving benefit of sec. 12A. The Assessing Officer stated that the assessee neither the got approval u/s 12AA of the Act during the relevant A.Y nor any assessment proceedings was pending during the date of registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Hence, the assessee trust is not entitled to benefit of sec. 11&12 and the claim

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

3) was calculated vide order dated 24.10.2018 determining the total income at Rs. 15,85,790/-. In the assessment order the AO made addition of Rs. 11,59,789/- u/s 68 of the Act towards unexplained cash deposited in the bank accounts. The present appeal has been preferred against the said assessment order. 4. The AO observed that the explanation

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blechainaram V/P Doli Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur - 342001. Pan No Biкpr9270C Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Ito, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur. Shri Anil Bhansali, Advocate. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit (Sr. D.R.) 21.05.2025. 26.06.2025. 17

section 147/144 of the act and that while deciding the case ex-parte, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and arbitrary confirmed the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act. It is seen that neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has addressed the relevant issue on merits