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.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for 'furnished inaccurate particulars of income' and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274 without specifying the limb of the penalty impossible and finally imposed penalty for furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore the question emerges as to whether penalty is sustainable, under the facts wherein the notice is not clear and/or issued without

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.”

u/s 270A is in force to replace section 27111) (C) of the IT act. In this relevant case the assessee had voluntarily surrendered his claimed deduction so in this case no penalty should be imposed because there was no addition on record and the voluntarily surrender never attracts penalty provision as held in various judgements "Penalty is unjustified in those

SHRI AMAR SINGH JAIN ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for 'furnished inaccurate particulars of income' and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274 without specifying the limb of the penalty impossible and finally imposed penalty for furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore the question emerges as to whether penalty is sustainable, under the facts wherein the notice is not clear and/or issued without

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.

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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)

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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