R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

gainfully made : Section 271AAB: Penalty where search has been initiated Section 271 AAB of the income Tax Act read as under: (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, [but before

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

capital gains were\r\nnot treated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\r\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\r\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\r\nof 'return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the search proceeding was carried out under section 132 of the Act on 13.02.2020 at the residential and business premises of the assessee group and family members of Bhagwati Group of Ajmer and the assessee is amongst the other

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee. Penalty proceedings\nu/s 270A of the Act is initiated on this issue for underreporting of income.\nFurther, the assessee has purchased an immovable property i.e. Flat no. A-1001,\nA Wing, Priyanka Blossom Apartment, Nashik on 31.05.2018 at the consideration\nof Rs.38,20,000/- (stamp value) and claimed the deduction

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain and other sources.\nReturn of Income for the year under appeal was filed by assessee on\n13.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,19,33,590/-. After filling the said\nreturn of income by the assessee the case of the assessee was selected\nfor Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019\non the issue of “Purchase value

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

9. We have perceived the oral as well as written arguments raised by both the parties to drive home to their contentions. The bench noted that the assessee during the course of the assessment proceeding submitted as under : The assessee vide his submission dated 03.03.2021 for A.Y.2018-19 has also submitted that "It is also an established position of law that

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

9. We have perceived the oral as well as written arguments raised by both the parties to drive home to their contentions. The bench noted that the assessee during the course of the assessment proceeding submitted as under : The assessee vide his submission dated 03.03.2021 for A.Y.2018-19 has also submitted that "It is also an established position of law that

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

9. We have perceived the oral as well as written arguments raised by both the parties to drive home to their contentions. The bench noted that the assessee during the course of the assessment proceeding submitted as under : The assessee vide his submission dated 03.03.2021 for A.Y.2018-19 has also submitted that "It is also an established position of law that

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S R.P.WOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., , AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

270A or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring total income

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring total income

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

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 took place on 07-01-2016in the case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153B (1) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29-12-2017. Action of Ld. A.O. The Ld. A.O. in the assessment order initiated

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 took place on 07-01-2016in the case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153B (1) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29-12-2017. Action of Ld. A.O. The Ld. A.O. in the assessment order initiated

MOHAN LAL YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD -1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1223/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Mohan Lal Yadav Vs. The ITO C/o Shri R.S. Poonia, CA Ward 1(1) D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg Jaipur Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ARMPY 7388Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Ms. Payal Jhorar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ga

Capital Gain for the period under consideration and added back to the income of the assessee, Penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act are initiated separately for misreporting of income. Further the assesse was asked to submit complete details of any other income, however no details of any kind have been submitted, accordingly the claim of agricultural income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gain on 31,565/- earned on sale of mutual funds. The assessee has further claimed deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act to the extent of Rs.2,40,698/- thereby declaring net taxable income at Rs. 15,53,040/-. 3.1 From the information available on record, one of the reasons for selection of the case of the assessee

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

9 Page No.1 and exhibit 8. The addition of Rs.29,498/- has been discussed in para 15 of the assessment order appearing on Page 33 to 36. The learned Ao has observed that as per Page 1 to 10 of Exhibit 9 there were unrecorded sales to various persons. The ld. AO has worked out the sales in the chart

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

gains from new industrial undertakings - Assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 - Whether for purpose of claiming relief under section 80J(6A), filing of audit report before ITO is mandatory - Held, yes - Whether filing of audit report along with return is mandatory - Held, no - Whether, if an assessee fails to file audit report along with return and files it subsequently