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

b) where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is a loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total income; (c) in any other case, determined in accordance with the formula— (X-Y) where

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

270A of the Act is initiated on this issue for underreporting of income.\nFurther, the assessee has purchased an immovable property i.e. Flat no. A-1001,\nA Wing, Priyanka Blossom Apartment, Nashik on 31.05.2018 at the consideration\nof Rs.38,20,000/- (stamp value) and claimed the deduction u/s 54 of the Act for\nthis transaction. But, deduction u/s

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

In the result the appeal no

2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if-\n(a)\nthe income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return\nprocessed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143;\n(b)\nthe income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to\ntax, where no return of income has been

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

In the result the appeal no

2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if-\n(a)\nthe income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return\nprocessed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143;\n(b)\nthe income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable\nto tax, where no return of income has been

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

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

147, the intention of the legislature and the scheme of the Act for making assessment u/s 153A where search u/s 132 is initiated, is same i.e. in order to make assessment of total income, after having assumed the jurisdiction to assess total income, the powers of AO shall not remain restricted to mere those material which were seized during search

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

147, the intention of the legislature and the scheme of the Act for making assessment u/s 153A where search u/s 132 is initiated, is same i.e. in order to make assessment of total income, after having assumed the jurisdiction to assess total income, the powers of AO shall not remain restricted to mere those material which were seized during search

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

147, the intention of the legislature and the scheme of the Act for making assessment u/s 153A where search u/s 132 is initiated, is same i.e. in order to make assessment of total income, after having assumed the jurisdiction to assess total income, the powers of AO shall not remain restricted to mere those material which were seized during search

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

147, the intention of the legislature and the scheme of the Act for making assessment u/s 153A where search u/s 132 is initiated, is same i.e. in order to make assessment of total income, after having assumed the jurisdiction to assess total income, the powers of AO shall not remain restricted to mere those material which were seized during search

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

147, the intention of the legislature and the scheme of the Act for making assessment u/s 153A where search u/s 132 is initiated, is same i.e. in order to make assessment of total income, after having assumed the jurisdiction to assess total income, the powers of AO shall not remain restricted to mere those material which were seized during search

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

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

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)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

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)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

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)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

b. Making double Taxation by Adding 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 i.e Rs 57,243/- which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax Return. c. Making double Taxation by Adding interest income of Rs.6,324/-which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax Return. d. The Learned CIT(A) used

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA portal, which are also pending at this level & limitation of passing penalty order shall be expired

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA portal, which are also pending at this level & limitation of passing penalty order shall be expired

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

270A of the Act for the AY 2017- 18 & notice u/s 271AAB(IA) of the Act for the AY 2018-19 were issued to the assessee 29.06.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 14.07.2022 & served upon his registered email (harish@resonance.ac.in) through ITBA portal, which are also pending at this level & limitation of passing penalty order shall be expired