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

143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2017. 2. Thereafter, the assessment in this case was completed U/s 147/144 r.w.s. 263 on 01.12.2021 at assessed income of Rs.5,08,518/- by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. During the assessment proceedings, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 02.08.2021, requiring him to prepare

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

143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2017. 2. Thereafter, the assessment in this case was completed U/s 147/144 r.w.s. 263 on 01.12.2021 at assessed income of Rs.5,08,518/- by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. During the assessment proceedings, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 02.08.2021, requiring him to prepare

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

143(3)/144 of the Act. The assessee was asked to produce the documents related to the capital account and the statement of affairs for the impugned assessment year. The assessee placed that the return was filed u/s 44AD and assessee has availed the presumptive scheme. So, the documents were not able to file before

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

143(3)/144 of the Act. The assessee was asked to produce the documents related to the capital account and the statement of affairs for the impugned assessment year. The assessee placed that the return was filed u/s 44AD and assessee has availed the presumptive scheme. So, the documents were not able to file before

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

143(3)/144 of the Act. The assessee was asked to produce the documents related to the capital account and the statement of affairs for the impugned assessment year. The assessee placed that the return was filed u/s 44AD and assessee has availed the presumptive scheme. So, the documents were not able to file before

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

143(3)/144 of the Act. The assessee was asked to produce the documents related to the capital account and the statement of affairs for the impugned assessment year. The assessee placed that the return was filed u/s 44AD and assessee has availed the presumptive scheme. So, the documents were not able to file before

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

143(3) of the IT Act was passed on 19.09.2019 determining total income at Rs. 9,29,620/-. During the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 5,00,000/- as donation u/s 80G of Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee himself accepted the deduction claimed u/s 80G was not genuine and wrong in accordance with

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

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.

3. That the show cause notice issued 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

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

UMMAID MAL SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Acit, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Central Circle-2, 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Jodhpur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Abpps7429D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur Dated 30Th September, 2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aaa Of The Income Tax Act Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ummaid Mal Singhvi

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA for 4 Ummaid Mal Singhvi concealing the particulars of income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271AAA after giving opportunity to the assessee vide order dated 31.08.2012. Submission of Ld. AR 3. At the outset, learned AR raised a legal issue that

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

sections. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed Ground No.6 Initiation of penalty proceedings 12 In this ground of appeal, the assessee has disputed the action of the AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

3) of the I.T, Act, 1961 by CASS. First notice u/s 143(2) of the I. T. Act was issued on 26.09.2018. Thereafter the fresh notices u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued from and the assessee was requested to furnish relevant details/information during the assessment proceedings online electronically through his E-filing account in incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in

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.”

143(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

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.”

143(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

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

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

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 as per this

LOKESH SETHIYA,CHITTORGARH vs. ITO, CHITTORGARH

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 14.12.2018. Lokesh Sethiya vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,24,265/- being cash deposited in bank account

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

section 115 BBE of the Act. Now Rs.11,74,800/- has been added to your total income U/s 69A Mewar Min Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO as treating it as your unexplained money after the discussion or prior approval of the JCIT, Bhilwara u/s 144A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, penalty proceedings u/s 271