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

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

In the result the appeal no

reassessed or recomputed in\na preceding order as if it were the total income; and\nY = the amount of tax calculated on the total income determined under\nclause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or total income assessed\nreassessed or recomputed in a preceding order.\n(11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis

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

In the result the appeal no

reassessed or recomputed in\na preceding order as if it were the total income; and\nY = the amount of tax calculated on the total income determined under\nclause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or total income assessed\nreassessed or recomputed in a preceding order.\n(11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis

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

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)

147-203 2019-20 27.04.2022 3,92,77,480 17,02,82,090 13,10,04,612 204-273 2020-21 26.04.2022 6,69,95,750 18,79,04,440 12,09,08,688 274-324 2021-22 26.04.2022 10,49,04,680 65,30,18,040 54,81,13,364 325-405 Aggrieved from the additions made

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)

147-203 2019-20 27.04.2022 3,92,77,480 17,02,82,090 13,10,04,612 204-273 2020-21 26.04.2022 6,69,95,750 18,79,04,440 12,09,08,688 274-324 2021-22 26.04.2022 10,49,04,680 65,30,18,040 54,81,13,364 325-405 Aggrieved from the additions made

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

e-proceedings account on department website. Subsequently, notice(s) u/s. 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee on various dates. The assessee furnished the ITR, Balance Sheet and profit and loss account and bank statement. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 10.03.2023 wherein 4 Ramdas Singh

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, 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

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

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

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint

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

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint