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.

40,000/-) as concealed income of the assessee and held that the assessee had concealed her income / furnished inaccurate particulars of her income to the tune of Rs. 10,01,300/- (Rs. 4,16,300/- + Rs. 5,85,000/-). Accordingly, the AO levied the penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being

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

MAHENDRA SINGH DHARAMPAL & CO.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemahendra Singh Dharampal & Acit Circle 2, Co Udaipur - 313001 15-18, Diamond Plazza, Hiran Magri Sect 5, Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aadfm 9764 A Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Revenue By Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Udaipur Dated 19.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 1,54,500/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ao.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for disallowance of remuneration of Rs. 5,00,000/- as there was no clause in the partnership deed for remuneration and it was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR argued that as per revised computation of income the total income is loss i.e. (Rs. Book profit u/s 40

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

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

40,00,000/- for alleged unexplained deposit in bank account. The addition is bad in law and bad on facts which was trading receipts. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in charging of tax u/s 115BBE at special rates on the additions made. The tax so charged at special rates is bad in law and bad on facts