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

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

270A for AY 2020- 21 in my mobile on 14.06.2025. At that time when I browsed the e-filing portal of society, it came to my notice that the appellate orders for AY 2017-18, 2020-21 & 2021-22 has been passed. 6. When I consulted my CA, it was advised to file the appeal against these orders for which

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

270A for AY 2020-\n21 in my mobile on 14.06.2025. At that time when I browsed the e-filing portal of\nsociety, it came to my notice that the appellate orders for AY 2017-18, 2020-21 &\n2021-22 has been passed.\n6. When I consulted my CA, it was advised to file the appeal against these orders\nfor which

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

270A for AY 2020-\n21 in my mobile on 14.06.2025. At that time when I browsed the e-filing portal of\nsociety, it came to my notice that the appellate orders for AY 2017-18, 2020-21 &\n2021-22 has been passed.\n6. When I consulted my CA, it was advised to file the appeal against these orders\nfor which

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of certain expenses, the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the notices dated 29th February, 2016 and 09.08.2016. The AO initially levied the penalty under section 271AAB vide order dated 30.08.2016 @ 10% of the undisclosed income total amounting

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of certain expenses, the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the notices dated 29th February, 2016 and 09.08.2016. The AO initially levied the penalty under section 271AAB vide order dated 30.08.2016 @ 10% of the undisclosed income total amounting

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)

2. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, and thereby set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 29.01.2022 levied penalty to the tune of Rs. 52,40,694/-, while recording finding that the assessee had under-reported

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 27th June, 2018 has 3 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty 3 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. order dated 27st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

2 of the appeal is dismissed.\n6.\nGround No. 3 is with regard to disallowance of consultancy expenses and other\nexpenses.\n6.1 The AO in the assessment order, it is submitted that out of consultancy\nexpenses of Rs.1,52,247/-, disallowance of Rs.18,285/- has been made.\nSimilarly, the Id. AO has disallowed expenses worth Rs.1

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowance of claim under section 80C of Rs. 9,400/-. Subsequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the show cause notice dated 23rd March, 2016 and again by notice dated 12.08.2016. The assessee objected to initiation of penalty proceedings as well as levy of penalty proposed by the AO, however, could not succeed

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)

2) of the Act and is not excluded from the same as per Section 270A(6) of the Act. The assessee has been unable to demonstrate as to how still addition made to its income on estimation basis does not qualify for levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. Further with respect to the penalty levied on the addition

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)

2) of the Act and is not excluded from the same as per Section 270A(6) of the Act. The assessee has been unable to demonstrate as to how still addition made to its income on estimation basis does not qualify for levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. Further with respect to the penalty levied on the addition

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of interest as part of the cost of the assets while computing long term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act against the surrendered amount of Rs. 7,22,00,000/- by issuing show cause notice dated 28th March, 2016 and 12.08.2016. The assessee raised the objections against the initiation of penalty proceedings

SHRI KAMAL SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance. The penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act were initiated vide show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee filed his reply to show cause notice vide letter dated 30.12.2016. The AO was not impressed with the reply filed by the assessee and levied the penalty @ 10% of the surrendered income amounting to Rs. 59,44,219/- vide order dated

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance. The penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act were initiated vide show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee filed his reply to show cause notice vide letter dated 30.12.2016. The AO was not impressed with the reply filed by the assessee and levied the penalty @ 10% of the surrendered income amounting to Rs. 61,95,020/- vide order dated

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