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)

9) of Section 270A of the Act which explains as to when misreporting would 3 ACIT Vs. Man Mohan Krishna amount to under-reporting, and further that misrepresentation or suppression of facts is one of the kind of misreporting of income made punishable under sub-section (8) of Section 270A of the Act, calling for heavy penalty equal

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. 6. Aggrieved from the above observation of the assessing officer while making the addition, assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal challenging that finding of the ld. AO. To support the grounds raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee, has filed

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

In the result the appeal no

TDS and self-assessment were Rs.39,94,450/-\nand reflected in Form 26AS. The return of income filed on 14.12.2021 at total\nincome of Rs.97,04,420/- was however, dismissed by the F.A.O., stating that “on\nperusal of departmental databse no trace of return was found on perusal of\ndepartmental database\".\n2. In the re-assessment order

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

In the result the appeal no

TDS and self-assessment were Rs.39,94,450/-\nand reflected in Form 26AS. The return of income filed on 14.12.2021 at total\nincome of Rs.97,04,420/- was however, dismissed by the F.A.O., stating that “on\nperusal of departmental databse no trace of return was found on perusal of\ndepartmental database”.\n2. In the re-assessment order

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

TDS was deducted on such income - Held, yes\n[Para 9] [In favour of assessee]\"\nWe therefore request you to kindly delete the Additions on Account\nof Salary of Rs. 29,86,963/- (HK$ 360000/-) received for services\nrendered in Hong Kong.\n3. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in\ntreating the Humble Appellant

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

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

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

9 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO provision of section 69A is not applicable since the amount withdrawn is verify bill from bank records nothing is concealed. That the Humble Appellant has received amount against supply of goods and payment has been received though banking channel from panchayat samities and the Humble Appellant has withdrawn cash for making payment to vendors/others

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

9)(a) and u/s 271 AAC. The\npenalty proceedings are premature and bad in law as the substantive additions are\ndisputed and not sustainable.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and\nerred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential in nature. The\ninterest charges

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

TDS schedule of ITR filed by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had earned an amount of Rs. 34,81,908/- as income under the head salary resulting in tax deduction of Rs. 8,36,435/-. However, the assessee had shown salary income of Rs.7,91,168/- only in part B-TI of the ITR.The assessee has claimed

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

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.

section 80P of income Tax Act, 1961. As per the TDS statement it is seen that all TDS deducted is only from the deposit in the Nationalized bank on which deduction u/s 80P is not allowable. 2.7 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mis Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd Vs ACIT, 84 taxmann

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

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

270A of the I.T. Act. Appellant\nprays that such initiation being bad in law deserves to be set aside.\n8.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances the Id. CIT (A) has erred in initiating\npenalty u/s 271AAC on the addition made by alleging the cash deposited during\nthe de-monetization period as being from undisclosed sources u/s 69A. Appellant

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.”

TDS of Rs. 81.870. Further on verification of Income Tax Rum fled by the assessee for the year under consideration, it is seen from the Income Tax Return, that the assessee has not shown any commission income for the AY 2018-19. Therefore, Commission received by the assessee of Rs. 16,33,400/- is added to the total income

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR 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

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, 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

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, 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