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

5. That the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause. 6. That act of AO is based the penalty of 271(1)(c) kept in absence and on the same ground this penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of it Act. 7. That as per judgment of Rajasthan High court delivered in case of Ramesh Chand Modi

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

5. That the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause. 6. That act of AO is based the penalty of 271(1)(c) kept in absence and on the same ground this penalty was imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of it Act. 7. That as per judgment of Rajasthan High court delivered in case of Ramesh Chand Modi

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

45,270/- by making some additions. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that during the F.Y. 2010-11, the assessee in violation of provisions of section 269T of the IT Act, 1961 has repaid in cash loan amounting to Rs. 60,000/- to Shri Sanjay Vyas.The explanation furnished by the assessee in this respect was considered

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.

45,72,332/- under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Financial Year 2012-13. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in holding that payments made to Van Suraksha and Prabandh Samitis (VFPMCs) were not contract payments under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argues that the VFPMCs

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)

45,72,332/- under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Financial Year 2012-13. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in holding that payments made to Van Suraksha and Prabandh Samitis (VFPMCs) were not contract payments under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argues that the VFPMCs

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

45,080/- on account of unexplained cash credits.\n(iii)\nIn the assessment order there is no finding that any books of accounts were\nmaintained by the assessee and that the alleged amount was found credited in the\nbooks of accounts or even in the bank account.\nAs per section 68 :\n“where any sum is found credited

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