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

section 153A. Therefore, the reliance on these decisions by the appellant is found to be misplaced. I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 6 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 The appellant explained that because of reasonable cause i.e. medical problem with the Authorized Representative, compliance could not be made. However, no such evidence was furnished before the AO during assessment

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

section 153A. Therefore, the reliance on these decisions by the appellant is found to be misplaced. I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 6 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 The appellant explained that because of reasonable cause i.e. medical problem with the Authorized Representative, compliance could not be made. However, no such evidence was furnished before the AO during assessment

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.”

271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Similarly, in the printed notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A, it is essential to tick the applicable part in printed penalty notice and strike off inapplicable part in printed penalty notice. Thus, if penalty is initiated only for under reporting of income

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, 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.”

50,00,000/- (which has been claimed as corpus receipts by the assessee) is hereby treated as Voluntary Contributions other than Corpus, under the head 'Income from Other Sources’ and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the order of the assessment the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose

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.”

50,00,000/- (which has been claimed as corpus receipts by the assessee) is hereby treated as Voluntary Contributions other than Corpus, under the head 'Income from Other Sources’ and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the order of the assessment the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose

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

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

50,05,320/-. Subsequent, a show-cause was issued by the ld PCIT u/s 263 and the impugned order was passed holding the 2 Shri Pawan Kumar Jain vs. Pr. CIT assessment order as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and setting aside the same to consider the issues raised in the impugned order afresh

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAILEELA SYNTHETICS PVT. LD. , BHILWARA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-, without appreciating the facts of the case that the AO specifically pointed out the defects in the bills and vouchers; 4) Deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from M/s. Inox Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. and interest paid of Rs.24,658/- thereupon, without appreciating the facts of the case

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the. law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open