JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

disallowances under section 14A -Held, yes -Whether this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' - Held, yes - Whether further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A was satisfied, mere reference to word 'misreporting' by revenue in penalty order to deny

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 of deduction u/sec. 80GGC of Rs.80,000/-. 2. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair. 3

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

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)

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 to 200% of the amount on tax payable on under- reporting income. Ld. DR has also

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

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

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

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

In the result the appeal no

3) The amount of under-reported income shall be,-\n(1)\n(a)\n(b)\n(A)\n(B)\nin a case where income has been assessed for the first time,\nif return has been furnished, the difference between the amoun\nof income assessed and the amount of income determined\nunder clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section

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

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144C(5)", "92D", "10D", "92C(3)", "92B", "92C", "115JB", "270A", "36(1)(va)", "115QA", "69C", "115QB", "10B(2)", "10C", "92", "10A" ], "issues": "The key issues involve the appropriateness of the transfer pricing method and comparable companies used, the chargeability of interest on outstanding receivables, the disallowance

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

270A shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section (1). (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. As is evident from the vanilla reading of the provision the proviso deals that the return

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)

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence rejected by the ld. AO. As the assessee failed to submit the exact sources of cash deposited in the bank account maintained by the assessee remained unexplained and the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were rightfully applicable in the case of the assessee which mandates that

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

3. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the appellant has failed\r\nto file return of income for the AY 2019-20 as per provision of section 139(1) of\r\nthe Act. Therefore keeping in view of provision of section 80AC and respectively\r\nfollowing the above judicial pronouncement. I am of the view

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270A of the Act for under reporting of income and thereby completed the assessment determining the total income at Rs. 3,87,72,400/-. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

disallowance of expenses.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "153A", "37(1)", "132", "132(4)", "145", "144", "147", "148", "149", "150", "153", "153A(1)", "153B", "153C", "271(1)(c)", "270A

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

disallowance of Rs.3,91,87,577/- made by\nld.AO out of Repairs & Maintenance expenses, arbitrarily.\n5.1 That, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance of\nRs.3,91,87,577/- made by ld.AOout of Repairs & Maintenance solely by\nmisinterpreting statements of accountant Sh. Manish Mor and director Sh. O P\nGupta recorded during the course of search, wherein