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

In the result the appeal no

9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be\nthe following, namely:-\n(a)\n(b)\n(c)\n(d)\n(e)\n(f)\n(a)\n(b)\n(c)\nmisrepresentation or suppression of facts\nfailure to record investments in the books of account\nclaim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence\nrecording

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

In the result the appeal no

9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be\nthe following, namely:-\n(a)\n(b)\n(c)\n(d)\n(e)\n(f)\n(a)\n(b)\n(c)\nmisrepresentation or suppression of facts\nfailure to record investments in the books of account\nclaim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence\nrecording

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)

9. It was submitted before me during the course of hearing that the addition/disallowance made while computing the income of the assessee were not challenged in appeal. However, it was contended that since the addition was made to the income of the assessee on estimate basis only, no penalty for ‘underreporting of income’ was leviable in terms of the provision

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)

9. It was submitted before me during the course of hearing that the addition/disallowance made while computing the income of the assessee were not challenged in appeal. However, it was contended that since the addition was made to the income of the assessee on estimate basis only, no penalty for ‘underreporting of income’ was leviable in terms of the provision

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

e-filed on 05.04.2021, declaring total income of Rs.25.59,470/- for the year under consideration. Record reveals that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Mahendra Kumar Goyal and also partner in M/s Galaxy Industries, M/s Goyal Mineral 4 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Grinding Mills and director in M/s Ganwari Silica Pvt. Ltd. Apart from

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)

e-filed on 05.04.2021, declaring total income of Rs.25.59,470/- for the year under consideration. Record reveals that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Mahendra Kumar Goyal and also partner in M/s Galaxy Industries, M/s Goyal Mineral 4 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Grinding Mills and director in M/s Ganwari Silica Pvt. Ltd. Apart from

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)

e-filed on 05.04.2021, declaring total income of Rs.25.59,470/- for the year under consideration. Record reveals that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Mahendra Kumar Goyal and also partner in M/s Galaxy Industries, M/s Goyal Mineral 4 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Grinding Mills and director in M/s Ganwari Silica Pvt. Ltd. Apart from

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)

e-filed on 05.04.2021, declaring total income of Rs.25.59,470/- for the year under consideration. Record reveals that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Mahendra Kumar Goyal and also partner in M/s Galaxy Industries, M/s Goyal Mineral 4 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Grinding Mills and director in M/s Ganwari Silica Pvt. Ltd. Apart from

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

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.”

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

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

DCIT, AJMER vs. M/S V.C. GRANITE, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270A even with regard to addition sustained to the extent of admitted profit element. 5. The learned CIT Appeal has erred in granting relief to the tax payer holding that there are no purchases in case of mining M/s. V.C. Granites, Ajmer. business, and in this process failing to consider that there are other expenses besides purchases, in any business

V C GRANITES,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270A even with regard to addition sustained to the extent of admitted profit element. 5. The learned CIT Appeal has erred in granting relief to the tax payer holding that there are no purchases in case of mining M/s. V.C. Granites, Ajmer. business, and in this process failing to consider that there are other expenses besides purchases, in any business

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

e-filed on 23.11.2015 for the assessment years 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs. 28,00,880/-. After filling return u/s. 153A, the notices u/s. 143(2) were issued from time to time and the assessee has response to the notice filed the details required in the assessment proceeding. The assessee was engaged in the business of commodity broking

ACIT, C.C. -4, JAIPUR vs. MAVERICK COMMODITY BROKERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

e-filed on 23.11.2015 for the assessment years 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs. 28,00,880/-. After filling return u/s. 153A, the notices u/s. 143(2) were issued from time to time and the assessee has response to the notice filed the details required in the assessment proceeding. The assessee was engaged in the business of commodity broking

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

e-filed on 23.11.2015 for the assessment years 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs. 28,00,880/-. After filling return u/s. 153A, the notices u/s. 143(2) were issued from time to time and the assessee has response to the notice filed the details required in the assessment proceeding. The assessee was engaged in the business of commodity broking