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)

Property sold (1/2 share). The reason granted by A.O. for such dis-allowance is “In absence of any supporting document / Evidences claim of “COST OF IMPROVEMENT” Rs 489159 is disallowed”. B. Whereas the Assessee vide reply to notice u/sec 142(1) of Act date 20.07.2023 has filed complete Details/Proof for such claim. Again on 23.08.2023 such Details/Evidence were E-Filed

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

270A(9) are initiated on the enhancement for misreporting of income by suppression of facts and the same shall be included in or clubbed with the penalty proceedings which were initiates by the assessing officer in the assessment order. Reference in this regard is also made to section 275(1A) of the Act. Before parting it is stated that even

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property, Capital Gain and other sources.\nReturn of Income for the year under appeal was filed by assessee on\n13.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,19,33,590/-. After filling the said\nreturn of income by the assessee the case of the assessee was selected\nfor Limited Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019\non the issue

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

270A or] clause (c) of\nsub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in\nrespect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 21[or sub-\nsection (1A)].\n(3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in\nrelation to the penalty referred to in this section

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 21[or sub-section (1A)]. (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. Explanation

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)

House Property and the Id AO has not given any opportunity before making the addition. Thus the addition so made is just on the presumption, assumption and surmises of the ld. AO and the CIT (Appeals), has erred in not giving any finding thereon and also erred in not disposing off the this ground on merit. 4. Section 24 rent

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

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 took place on 07-01-2016in the case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153B (1) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29-12-2017. Action of Ld. A.O. The Ld. A.O. in the assessment

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 took place on 07-01-2016in the case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153B (1) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29-12-2017. Action of Ld. A.O. The Ld. A.O. in the assessment

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

8) can confirm, reduce or enhance the variations\nproposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed\nvariation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further enquiry and\npassing of the assessment order. Since, the assessee has filed its objection\nunder section 144C of the Act read with Income Tax (Dispute Resolution

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. VIJAY KUMAR SAINI, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

House Property, Business or profession and income from other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of assessee in connection with search and seizure action in Saini-Gupta- Malpani-Somani Group of Ajmer on 13.02.2020. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed his original Return

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (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. Explanation

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

House Property, remuneration from partnership firm, short term capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

House Property, remuneration from partnership firm, short term capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

8 (Party 3) Page No. 43 of Exhibit 8 (Party No.3) Page No. 41 of Exhibit 8 (Party 3) It is on the basis of these papers that the ld. AO has observed that the assessee indulged in accounted sales. After working out the unaccounted sales, which has been done by the ld. AO arbitrarily decoding the figures by adding

SH. KRISHNA KUMAR PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,71,207/- (22,01,721 – 7,30,514), being excess of interest paid over interest received in proprietary

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

section 153A and \nsubmit that the same should have been done u/s.153C of the Act. That \nissue has already been discussed at length by the ld. CIT(A) while dealing \nwith the appeal of the assessee. Records reveal that during the search at \nthe premises of the assessee Exhibit 08 was found and at page 6 the \nalleged transaction being

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house of Rs.3,04,890/-. The assessee vide letter dt.19.09.2021 (PB 1-5, point no. 3) explained that the construction expenditure is in respect of construction of boundary wall on Plot No.33, 34 & 35 which is owned by assessee, Sanjay Goyal & Narayan Goyal at Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur. The source of the expenditure is stated to be out of TP Dala