SITA DEVI CHOUDHARY,AHORE JALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALORE

In the result, stands allowed

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

b The assessee is found to be the owner (ii) Of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article Of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article (iii) And such is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any And such is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any (iv) Maintained by him for any source

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 (1) (b) which was against the facts and also against the law. Your honour is requested to order for cancellation of said initiation of penalty and oblize. Keeping in view of the above submission your honour is requested to delete both the additions and oblige 2.3.1 Further, it is noted that the ld. AR of the assessee has filed

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) of the IT Act. In this relevant case the assessee had voluntarily surrendered his claim of 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 judgments penalty is unjustified in this case wherein assessee has surrender

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

271 (VIII)CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 101 DTR 377 Once the amount was advanced by the creditors by account payee cheques from their respective bank accounts and the creditors were being assessed to income tax, the capacity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction stood proved. Addition u/s 68 was not sustainable. I.T.A. No.755/Jodh/2025 & SA No. 03/Jodh/2025

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

sections. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed Ground No.6 Initiation of penalty proceedings 12 In this ground of appeal, the assessee has disputed the action of the AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground of appeal does not have any merit, as no prejudice is caused to the assessee on mere

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) :

1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x). 3.7 The assessee was in receipt of unsecured loan of Rs.25 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Inox Buildcon Private Limited which was one of the share-applicant and for which addition u/s 68 was already made by Ld. AO. Accordingly, the said loan as well as interest paid therefore aggregating to Rs.25.24 Lacs

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

68 TTJ (JP-TRIB) 731. 5. Provisions of Sec 40A (3) do not apply in respect of an expenditure which is not to be claimed as deduction u/s 30 to 37/of 1.T. Act, 1961. In the instant case payment is for purchase of goods in stock in trade which is again carry forward as closing stock to next year

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