J.S.FOURWHEEL MOTORS (P) LTD ,ALWAR vs. ACIT. CIRCLE 1 ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation of Rs. 3303401.00/-on account of not producing evidences of addition to the fixed assets and adding it back to the income of assesse company and without providing any opportunity to the assess company before making the addition, whereas the assesse company is having every evidence, bills, and vouchers of the additions in the fixed assets and books

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ACITDCIT, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

7. In view of the above reasons and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

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

Section 144B of the Act, and also simultaneously directing initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. 2.1 In its return of income for the said assessment year, the assessee company had shown total income of Rs.1,02,52,940/-. 2.2. The assessment order came to be passed after the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

SHRI CHANDRAPRABH CHARITABLE SANSTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 363 & 364/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Shri Chandraprabh Charitable Sanstha, Shree Digamber Jain Mandir Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward-01, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGTS 7441 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.), Shri Ruchika Sogani (Adv.) jk

270A for underreporting of income is hereby confirmed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the detailed submission filed before the ld. CIT(A). In addition to that submission the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee has filed return of income claiming benefit of section

SHRI CHANDRAPRABH CHARITABLE SANSTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 363 & 364/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Shri Chandraprabh Charitable Sanstha, Shree Digamber Jain Mandir Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward-01, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGTS 7441 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.), Shri Ruchika Sogani (Adv.) jk

270A for underreporting of income is hereby confirmed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the detailed submission filed before the ld. CIT(A). In addition to that submission the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee has filed return of income claiming benefit of section

SCHOLAR'S EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,602-A, TRIMURTY DAVE APARTMENT, JAI SINGH HIGHWAY MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Bench: The Cit(A), The Power Exercised By Him U/S 263 For Disallowing The Donation Paid To Other Society Would Not Fall In The Ambit Of Section 263. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Given By Ld. Cit That Once Exemption U/S 11 Is Withdrawn, Not Disallowing The Scholar’S Education Trust Of India Vs. Cit(E)

section 263. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding given by Ld. CIT that once exemption u/s 11 is withdrawn, not disallowing the Scholar’S Education Trust of India vs. CIT(E) donation of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- in computing the total income has made the assessment order passed by AO as erroneous & prejudicial

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\r\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\r\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\"\r\n27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is\r\npresumed to be not extravagant, in using the words

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)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

depreciation assessment is enhanced accordingly. The penalty proceedings u/s 270A(9) are initiated on the enhancement for misreporting of income by suppression of facts and the same shall be included in or clubbed with the penalty proceedings which were initiates by the assessing officer in the assessment order. Reference in this regard is also made to section

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court