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)

9 to section 270A” the fact of AO cannot be considered for “MISREPORTING” and thus the AO was suppose to grant immunity u/sec. 270AA and this order of AO is requested to be quashed. The assessee has applied for immunity u/sec. 270AA by filing form 68 (Rule 129) which also has been denied by AO since considered such 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

9), it is relevant to consider the provisions of law dealing with underreporting of income and misreporting of income as a consequence of underreporting. Section 270A (1) and (2) deal with the levy of penalty for underreporting of income, with sub-Section (1) empowering the competent authority to levy penalty for underreporting of income and sub-Section (2) specifying

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)

9) of Section 270A of the Act which explains as to when misreporting would 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

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

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

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2017-18 and 18- 19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- Govindam Brj Projects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. ITA NO. 1114/JPR/2025 AY 2017-18 : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and CIT (A) erred

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 40(a)(ia) of the Act, disallowed 30% of the interest amounting to Rs.38,226/-. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270 A of the Act for ‘underreporting of income’ pertaining to the same was also initiated. Subsequently penalty order was passed levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act on the total addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.5

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 40(a)(ia) of the Act, disallowed 30% of the interest amounting to Rs.38,226/-. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270 A of the Act for ‘underreporting of income’ pertaining to the same was also initiated. Subsequently penalty order was passed levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act on the total addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.5

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

9) clearly reveals that even\r\nunder those provisions, the restrictions placed with regard to the accrual of interest\r\non amounts assessed on an assessee iswith regard to the date of filing a return\r\nwithin the time prescribed under the IT Act. Under section 234A, however, although\r\nthe provision suggests that even a return filed beyond

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)

9. Section 37 Disallowance of expenses That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in making an adhoc disallowance of expenses of Rs. 1360956.00 being 10 percent of the specified exp, which is against case history and previous assessment order of the same assessing officer, and erred

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

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

9)(a) of the IT Act. The penalty\nproceedings initiated is consequent to the 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

270A(9)(c), initiated\nseparately for misreporting/under reporting the facts as discussed above. Penalty\nu/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance of statutory notices. Penalty initiation for\nviolation of section 269SS & 269T of the IT Act. Levied tax and charged interest\nu/s 234 B & 234 C as per separate tax calculation sheet forming part of this order.\nIssue ITNS

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

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)

270A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated separately. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 19 ITO vs. Vasudev Hemrajani The AO stated that the case was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS due to 'Low income compared to large commission receipts' and 'Large cash deposits in bank account(s)'. The appellant derived

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.”

section 270A of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income despite facts that interest disallowed by A.O. is duly disclosed in return of income filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

disallowed due to\nreason that assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidence in support\nof his claim. Therefore, the whole consideration of Rs. 69,90,000/- is considered\nas Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee. Penalty proceedings\nu/s 270A of the Act is initiated on this issue for underreporting of income.\nFurther, the assessee

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