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.

2) & 142(1) was not served and she fails to attend and file reply on the date of hearing. Due to this Ld. AO passed ex-parte order on 04.03.2013 U/s 143(3)/144 and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 40,000 @ Rs.10,000 for 4 instances of non-compliance. This order was also not properly served

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

2. The six month expires from the date 31.10.2017 on 30.04.2018. 3. Therefore, order u/s 271E should have been passed on or before 30.04.2018 as per this clause. Conclusion: Since, in view of the above, the later period expires on 30.04.2018. Therefore, the penalty proceeding must have been completed till 30.04.2018. iv. Since in the present case penalty order u/s

CHAMPA LAL MEHTA ,SANCHORE vs. ITO WARD-2, JALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

19(2)(5) Mumbai, ITA No.\n1953/mum/2022 where it was held that -\n\"We find the A.O has made ad hoc disallowance of bogus purchases and\nhas accepted the sales in the books ofaccounts. On appeal, the CIT(A) has\nrestricted the addition considering the profit element @ 25% and on\nfurther appeal the Honble Tribunal has restricted the addition

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)

19,600/- was added by the AO on account of cash deposit in the Union Bank of India and The Karnataka Bank Ltd. and on account of interest income as undisclosed. On considering the same as suppressed income as well as undisclosed portion of income, the penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated

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)

19 to 22 of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on the record. Admittedly, the Tribunal in the case of ITO, TDS Ajmer vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (ITA No. 358-360/JP/2023) vide order dt. 08/11/2023 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee

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.

19 to 22 of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on the record. Admittedly, the Tribunal in the case of ITO, TDS Ajmer vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (ITA No. 358-360/JP/2023) vide order dt. 08/11/2023 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee

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, 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

19,300/-\nthereafter net profit was Rs. 1,22,128/- for the trading in shares. The net income from\ntrading of shares has already been included in gross income of Rs. 3,09,500/- from trade\nand business, declared in the ITR.\nIn any of the accountancy system, there is no such method of calculating profit