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

8) and (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

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

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

In the result the appeal no

147 / 144 / 144B dated 28.03.2022, the\nF.A.O. has also reproduced the reply of the assessee dated 09.08.2021 in para\n3.1 and also his notice u/s 142(1) dated 26.11.2021. The A.O. determined the\ntotal income at Rs.1,10,04,984/- on the basis of details which included\ncomputation of income as per the Companies Act, filed with the reply dated

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

In the result the appeal no

147 / 144 / 144B dated 28.03.2022, the\nF.A.O. has also reproduced the reply of the assessee dated 09.08.2021 in para\n3.1 and also his notice u/s 142(1) dated 26.11.2021. The A.O. determined the\ntotal income at Rs.1,10,04,984/- on the basis of details which included\ncomputation of income as per the Companies Act, filed with the reply dated

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

270A & 271AAC(1)of the act. 7. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing. 3 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 8. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from

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

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

8,15,691/- M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others Before we begin with submission on merits, it is submitted that assessments in respect of all the assessees were completed u/s 153A as a result of search conducted on 22.07.2015. On the date of search, due date of issuing notice u/s 143(2) had expired in respect

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

8,15,691/- M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others Before we begin with submission on merits, it is submitted that assessments in respect of all the assessees were completed u/s 153A as a result of search conducted on 22.07.2015. On the date of search, due date of issuing notice u/s 143(2) had expired in respect

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

8,15,691/- M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others Before we begin with submission on merits, it is submitted that assessments in respect of all the assessees were completed u/s 153A as a result of search conducted on 22.07.2015. On the date of search, due date of issuing notice u/s 143(2) had expired in respect

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

8,15,691/- M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others Before we begin with submission on merits, it is submitted that assessments in respect of all the assessees were completed u/s 153A as a result of search conducted on 22.07.2015. On the date of search, due date of issuing notice u/s 143(2) had expired in respect

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

8,15,691/- M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others Before we begin with submission on merits, it is submitted that assessments in respect of all the assessees were completed u/s 153A as a result of search conducted on 22.07.2015. On the date of search, due date of issuing notice u/s 143(2) had expired in respect

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

8. Accordingly, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act was not justified and we uphold the order of the Tribunal cancelling the revisional order passed by the CIT. 16. Based on the above contentions the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed u/s. 263 by the PCIT is without jurisdiction

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

8. Accordingly, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act was not justified and we uphold the order of the Tribunal cancelling the revisional order passed by the CIT. 16. Based on the above contentions the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed u/s. 263 by the PCIT is without jurisdiction

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

8. Accordingly, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act was not justified and we uphold the order of the Tribunal cancelling the revisional order passed by the CIT. 16. Based on the above contentions the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed u/s. 263 by the PCIT is without jurisdiction

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

8. Accordingly, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act was not justified and we uphold the order of the Tribunal cancelling the revisional order passed by the CIT. 16. Based on the above contentions the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed u/s. 263 by the PCIT is without jurisdiction

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

8. Accordingly, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act was not justified and we uphold the order of the Tribunal cancelling the revisional order passed by the CIT. 16. Based on the above contentions the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed u/s. 263 by the PCIT is without jurisdiction

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

8. Accordingly, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act was not justified and we uphold the order of the Tribunal cancelling the revisional order passed by the CIT. 16. Based on the above contentions the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed u/s. 263 by the PCIT is without jurisdiction

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

8. Accordingly, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act was not justified and we uphold the order of the Tribunal cancelling the revisional order passed by the CIT. 16. Based on the above contentions the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed u/s. 263 by the PCIT is without jurisdiction