NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

270A. Therefore the ground\nraised is dismissed.\nGround No. 3: The appellant craves the right to add, delete or amend any of the\ngrounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.\nThis is a general ground raised that does not require adjudication.\n6.\nIn the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. MAN MOHAN KRISHNA, ALWAR

18. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS, on payments to contractors, having not been deducted as required u/s 194C of the Act. 12. The Assessing Officer observed in the penalty order that since the assessee had declared loss in the income tax return, it was a case calling for levy of penalty under sub-section (7) of Section 270A of the Act. 13. In the course

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section can be invoked only when the assessee is\nfound to be an owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article which is\nnot recorded in the books (if any) maintained for any source of income by the\nassessee and the assessee is not able to satisfactorily explain the source of\nacquiring such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable articles

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

270A of the IT Act, 1961 for under reporting of income is also being initiated separately. AO’s comments: The contention of the assessee is not acceptable as the assessee was in fact liable for TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the expenditure is the nature of the business promotion expenses which

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

section\n270A of the Act. No satisfactory explanation is offered by the appellant as to why\npenalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied in its case. Hence, I hereby hold\nthat the appellant is liable for penalty u/s 270A of the Act for failure to offer its\ntaxable income by filing its return of income within

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

section\n270A of the Act. No satisfactory explanation is offered by the appellant as to why\npenalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied in its case. Hence, I hereby hold\nthat the appellant is liable for penalty u/s 270A of the Act for failure to offer its\ntaxable income by filing its return of income within

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

270A of the Act.\n6. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of\nhearing.\n7. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of\nappeal before or at the time of hearing.\nTheGroundsofAppealarediscussedinDetailasperbelow:-\n1. ThatorderofLearnedAssessingAuthorityisbadinlaw,illegalandagainstf\nactsandcircumstancesofthecase.\ni) That the SCN issued on Dt 19-04-2021 for hearing

JAMBO CREDIT AND THRIFT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO-6(1),, JAIPUR

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 12.06.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, As Thereby The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Has Been Dismissed.

2. Expenses that TDS has not been deducted as its not applicable. (13,43,475). Thus, as provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 30% of above two items Le. 30% of Rs.24.19.595/- which comes to Rs.7.25,878/- is disallowed and added to total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A

RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

270A & 271AAC(1)of the act. 7. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing. 8. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 11 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO WRITTEN SUBMISSION:- 1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

270A, 271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not sustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. We find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days each

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

270A, 271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not\nsustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above\ngrounds of appeal at the time of hearing.\"\n3.\nWe find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days\neach

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

270A, which is also applicable to search asstt. for AYs other than specified years, mandates to levy penalty even in cases where the expenses had been claimed in the books without any evidence or where the entries recorded in the books were found to be false. This also supports the contention that mere recording of an entry in the books

MAWALIYO KI DHANI DUGDH UTPADAK MAHILA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS Statement, had received contractual payments from Jaipur Zilla DudghUtpadakSahkari Sangh Ltd., amounting to Rs. 2.71,246/-. Also, as per the Assessment Order. it is seen that the ITR filed in response to Notice u/s 148 was an invalid ITR and hence, all the above transactions remained unverified. In view of the above discussion of facts and circumstances

PRASHANT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(3), JPR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

2-Addition of Rs.1633400/- on account of commission receipt- (a) This ground arises from the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 1633400/- in respect of the commission received by the assessee during the year under consideration. 4 Prashant Singh vs. ITO It is noted from the impugned order that the assessee-appellant had filed the return

BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX,CHURU vs. ACIT, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 270A(9) of the IT Act set out six circumstances that amount to “misreporting” of 4 Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu. income. Clause (a) deals with “misrepresentation or suppression of facts”. Misrepresentation implies that there is no true and fair disclosure. The Hon’ble Madras High Court has explained the meaning of misrepresentation as (i) the act of making

SH. SURENDRA LAAD ,738-A, RK PURAM, SECTOR A, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) jof the Act was sent on 22.09.2019 and subsequently notices u/s 142(1)j of the act was sent on 18.02.2020 and query letter dated 08.01.2021 through e-mail/e-filing portal which were duly served upon the assessee. On perusal of TDS schedule of ITR filed by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had earned an amount

AJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD1(3), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, [In short “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Ajay Kumar vs. NFAC 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the application of the assessee u/r 46A of IT Rules

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS by various persons and entities of the Maverick group including assessee, along with many other individuals and entities (who are not at all related with assessee). These excel sheets contained details of amount borrowed, interest paid, Tax deducted, amount of loan returned with dates of assessee, as also contained the last column which had further sub columns which