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)

disallowed; Penalty u/sec 270A was deleted. Further clause (3) to sec 270A sub clause (ii) to said section further states- The Amount of under reported Income shall be “In any other case the difference between the Amount of Income reassessed or recomputed and the Amount of Income Assessed/ Reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order: Further clause (6

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/sec. 80GGC of Rs.80,000/-. 2. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair. 3. The facts relating to the case are that the assessee originally had filed return of income for the impugned year claiming deduction on account of donation made to political parties under Section 80GGC of the Act amounting to Rs.80,000/-. Subsequently

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)

6) of 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 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 made to the income of the assessee on account of disallowance

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 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 made to the income of the assessee on account of disallowance

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

In the result the appeal no

6) or sub-section (7),\nwhere under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by\nany person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two\nhundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income.\n22(9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

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

In the result the appeal no

6) or sub-section (7),\nwhere under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by\nany person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two\nhundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income.\n22(9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

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)

6. Section 43B Disallowance on account of non-payment of sum before due date of filing of return of income. That the ld. assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in making an addition of Rs. 2910610.00/- to the income on account of non-payment of certain sum before

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

270A of the Act for under reported income are being initiated\r\nseparately. Copy enclosed (PB19-23).\r\nIn response thereto the assessee has filed the reply on 20.02.2024(PB24-32)\r\nwith the legal position and case laws, also reproduced at page 14-19 of the\r\nassessment order. However the Id. AO did not feel satisfy with

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

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

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

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

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

ACIT, CC-4, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANSHUL JAIN, 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. 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. 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