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

34 taxmann.com 65 • DCIT Vs. B.J.D Paper products [2012] 17 taxmann.comj 11 (Luck) • DCIT Vs. Nepa Limited. ITA No. 683/Indore/2013 • Hafeez contractor vs. ACIT, ITA No. 6222/2013 (Mumbai) • Suvaprasanna B Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010 • Sanjog T. Lodha Vs. ITO, ITA No. 688/PN/2014 etc. 5.1 It was further submitted that Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) did not make

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

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)

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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.

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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

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.”

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). Hence, the ground of appeal is dismissed being premature at this stage. 06. The last ground of appeal is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication thus the same being treated as duly disposed off hereby. 07. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 8. Feeling dissatisfied from the order

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.”

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). Hence, the ground of appeal is dismissed being premature at this stage. 06. The last ground of appeal is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication thus the same being treated as duly disposed off hereby. 07. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 8. Feeling dissatisfied from the order

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) holding that not to tick correct limb of the notice regarding concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income, renders the notice and consequential proceedings as invalid and void, was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows. Copy of notice u/s 148 is enclosed-2. (2) That

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

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAILEELA SYNTHETICS PVT. LD. , BHILWARA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 4.4 The appellant has furnished, in respect of each person following documentary evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the persons from whom the appellant has received

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10. It is noted that during the year under consideration, the total income of the assessee was only Rs.1,44,430/- plus agricultural income of Rs.70,000/-. Therefore, the assessee had not filed the Income Tax Return. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 on 17-03-2016. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed