URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Ajmer. 2 Urmila Rajendra Mundra vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has wrongly confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 2,03,488/- considering disallowances

GUNMALA JAIN,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1262/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears :2019-20 Gunmala Jain, बनाम 28 Abhi Lash Nikunj, Kalyan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2) Colony, Ajmer Road Kekri, Ajmer स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.: ABRPJ 4764E Ajmer अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assesseeby :Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr.V.C.) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (Addl. CIT) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/1

Section 270A of the Act. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 2 Gunmala Jain 1. The ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty u/sec. 270A at Rs.33,280/- (200%) is bad in law. Penalty levied on suo motto disallowance

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)

Section 270A of the Act. Analysis & Findings 8. Admittedly, the assessment order imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Act came to be passed on 29.01.2022 subsequent to the assessment order of even date, relating to the same assessment year 2019-20, whereby the Assessing Officer had disallowed

SHRI SHYAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

Section 145(3) of the Act and the lump sum disallowance of Rs.5 lacs of expenses be not made. The assessee merely submitted impossibility of maintaining site-wise accounts considering the nature of business of the assessee. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.5 lacs of expenses was made to the income of the assessee and penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 270A

SHRI SHYAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

Section 145(3) of the Act and the lump sum disallowance of Rs.5 lacs of expenses be not made. The assessee merely submitted impossibility of maintaining site-wise accounts considering the nature of business of the assessee. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.5 lacs of expenses was made to the income of the assessee and penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 270A

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

disallowance of the deduction under Section 80P was not justified solely because the return was filed belatedly. Referring to various judicial precedents and circulars, it was noted that the provisions of Section 80AC, as amended from time to time, and the applicability of Section 143(1)(a)(v) did not support the denial of deduction in this case, especially considering

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

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

In the result the appeal no

270A of the\nAct can be levied or not. As the issue touches upon the levy of penalty u/s.\n270A of the Act it would be appropriate to deal with the provision of section\n270A of the Act which reads as under ;\n[Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income.\n15270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or 16 [the Joint

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

In the result the appeal no

270A of the\nAct can be levied or not. As the issue touches upon the levy of penalty u/s.\n270A of the Act it would be appropriate to deal with the provision of section\n270A of the Act which reads as under ;\n[Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income.\n15270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or 16 [the Joint

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)

disallowance so made is just on presumption, assumption and surmises of the ld. Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), has erred in not giving any finding thereon and also erred in not disposing off the this ground on merit. 10. Section 156 Creation of Demand That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well

RAJASTHAN GRAMEEN AAJEEVIKA VIKAS PARISAD,JAIPUR vs. ACITDCIT CIR -6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical\npurposes\nOrder pronounced in the open Court on\n19/01/2024

Section 144, 270A and 271AAC of the Act raising\nfollowing grounds of appeal in respective appeals..\nITA No. 535, 551 & 538/JPR/2023\nRajasthan Grameen Aajeevika Vikas Parisad\nITA No. 535/JPR/2023 Α.Υ. 2018-19\n“1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLD CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition the capital

GURJANT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed. 4 Shri Gurjant Singh vs. PCIT 4. On culmination of proceedings, the ld. PCIT called for the assessment recorded upon examination ld. PCIT noted that an addition of Rs. 16,61,53,771/- was made under section 68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained sundry creditors. The FAO has initiated penalty under section 270A

SHASHI GUPTA,MADHO SINGH CIRCLE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

disallowance of interest on unsecured loans under section 57(iii), claimed by the assessee in her return of income tax. Ld. A.O. has also initiated penalty proceeding under section 270A

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s.\n40A(3) the revenue observed clear violation of section 40A (3) of the Act\nand therefore, the addition is required to be sustained.\n12. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower\nauthority and material placed on record. The bench noted that the assessee\nis engaged in the wholesale and retail business

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

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

270A(1) of the I.T. Act was also initiated. 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who dismissed the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the additions made by the AO, stating that 4 Sh. Murli Dhar Upadhyay, jaipur. the appellant could not controvert the findings given

M.S. MODI AND SONS ,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to\ncosts

disallowance of\nthe deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 10AA of the\nAct, no separate adjudication is required. Hence, the\nappeal is dismissed.\n6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.\n2.2\nFurther, it is noticed in this case that there is a delay 101 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

270A and 271AAB as explained above while considering as to what material would constitute incriminating for the purposes of assessment of total income under section153A /C. 2.4 The provisions of section 153A/153C are not the normal assessment provisions like 143(3); rather they are curative provisions to plug the mischief of evasion of taxable income based on evidences found

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

270A and 271AAB as explained above while considering as to what material would constitute incriminating for the purposes of assessment of total income under section153A /C. 2.4 The provisions of section 153A/153C are not the normal assessment provisions like 143(3); rather they are curative provisions to plug the mischief of evasion of taxable income based on evidences found