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

5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as the penal provisions have held to be strictly construed, the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act should satisfy the grounds which the AO has to meet specifically. It was further stated that in the notice issued under section 274 r.ws. 271

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.

11 ITA 87/Jodh/2019_ Vamita Singh Vs ITO 12. In our view, Section 273B of the Act clearly provides, inter alia, that penalty U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act need not be imposed, if it is proved that there was a ‘reasonable cause’ for the said failure of the assessee to comply with the provisions of Section 271

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

11 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. of section 275 is not applicable in the present case, therefore, this clause is applicable. Conclusion: Period of limitation for imposing penalty shall be calculated in view of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 275 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present case. iii. As per the clause (c) of sub-section

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

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

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

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

5. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied the penalty of Rs. 37,350/- u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalty. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty proceedings were

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.

5,85,000/-). Accordingly, the AO levied the penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A), and furnished the written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2 of the impugned order for the cost

SHRI GOPAL GOUSHALA,BARMER vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2016-17 Sh. Gopal Goushala, Income Tax Officer, C/O D. Kansara & Associates, Vs (Exemption), Jodhpur Ca’S 84, Narpat Nagar, Opportunity Shyam Restourant Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj) 342001 Pan: Aaatg2071M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Gopal Goushala Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Jodhpur Dated 12.02.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.That The Lower Authorities Erred In Computing/Sustaining The Assessment Made Ex Parte U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Lower Authorities Erred In Not Allowing Benefits Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act To The Trust Duly Registered U/S 12Aa. 3. That The Lower Authorities Erred In Framing Assessment In The Status Of Aop Instead Of Religious & Charitable Trust.” Sh. Gopal Goushala

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is also initiated for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) dated 21.06.2018. Penalty proceedings u/s 271B is also initiated for noncompliance of provision of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order though copy of registration under section 12AA was filed

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

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)

5 Shri Thakur Chaplot, AY 2010-11 Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory

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)

5 Shri Shiv Singh Chouhan, AY 2010-11 assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake in the notice would not invalidate penalty proceedings. 10. In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha

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)

5 Shri Sarfaraj Ahmed, AY 2010-11 Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that

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

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'Ble

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

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'Ble

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

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