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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

271(1)(c). Accordingly, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed.” 4. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 1 relates to ld. CIT (A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order passed under section 271E

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT,CENTERAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty order fails to specify whether the\npenalty is being levied for \"concealment of income\" or \"furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars.\" The twin conditions prescribed under section 271(1)(c) are not satisfied in\nthe present case. In support of the above contentions, the Ld. AR relied on several\njudicial precedents, including:\nCIT v. Pushpendra Surana [(2014) 264 CTR (Raj) 204]\nCIT

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Trust v. ACIT [(2025) 39 NYPTTJ 493 (Nagpur)] 3.3 The Ld. AR emphasized that where the income declared in the return under section 148 is accepted without any variation

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Trust v. ACIT [(2025) 39 NYPTTJ 493 (Nagpur)] 3.3 The Ld. AR emphasized that where the income declared in the return under section 148 is accepted without any variation

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Trust v. ACIT [(2025) 39 NYPTTJ 493 (Nagpur)] 3.3 The Ld. AR emphasized that where the income declared in the return under section 148 is accepted without any variation

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCITL CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

253 CTR (SC) 1] o Narangi Land Development Corp. v. ITO [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 1256 (Mum)] o Ajoy Sharma v. DCIT [(2024) 114 ITR (Trib) 702 (JP)] o Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Trust v. ACIT [(2025) 39 NYPTTJ 493 (Nagpur)] 3.3 The Ld. AR emphasized that where the income declared in the return under section 148 is accepted without any variation

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.

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 on such a notice being contrary to the provisions of law & facts kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter