SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1) of section 115BBE: Provided that no penalty shall be levied in respect of income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1)(a)(ii)(an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return). 7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

1)(a)(ii)(an\nincorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any\ninformation in the return).\n7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative\nBank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala),\nthe Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond\nperiod stipulated under section 139

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer‘s contribution and does

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

139(1) on 28-09-2012 declaring\nan income of Rs.92,85,050/- which was processed u/s 143(1). A search u/s 132\nwas carried out at various business and residential premises of firm and its\npartners on 05-02-2015.\nAction of Ld. A.O.\nThe Ld. A.O. thereafter issued notice u/s 153A

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act clearly applicable. 5.6 Even no return was filed u/s 139. The total income returned in the return in response to Notice u/s 153A is Rs. 4,68

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

139(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be treated as "Undisclosed Income" within the specific meaning given in section 271AAB. The Department carried out search and seizure operations over assessee group and during the course of the search, the Department has not found any evidence of unaccounted purchase/sales or source of undisclosed income. The disclosure of additional income

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

68 of the Act and thereby assessed as such. A propose this ground the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under : Regarding the addition of Rs.6.45,810, which represents additional income offered by the appellant through revised computation and return, this amount stems from interest income of Rs.11.21.649 as per Form 26AS. According to the appellant

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act and thereby assessed as such. A propose this ground the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under : Regarding the addition of Rs.6.45,810, which represents additional income offered by the appellant through revised computation and return, this amount stems from interest income of Rs.11.21.649 as per Form 26AS. According to the appellant

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

1) but even the extended date u/s 139(4)." The Ld. CIT(A) failed to notice that the new asset purchased by the assessee was well within the extended time u/s 139(4) and thus deduction u/s 54B claimed by the assessee was fully allowable. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the genuine reasons which delayed the investment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1)(c).", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["271AAB", "250", "132", "139", "153A", "68", "274", "271", "158BFA", "69", "69B"], "issues": "Whether the penalty

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

1)(b) read with\nSection 11(5)—Amount said to have received as donation was added back to\nincome of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by\nAssessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for\ncarry forward of depreciation etc—Tribunal after taking note of factual position,\nmore particularly, that

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and\nsection 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,-\n(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

1)(b) read with\nSection 11(5)—Amount said to have received as donation was added back to\nincome of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by\nAssessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for\ncarry forward of depreciation etc—Tribunal after taking note of factual position,\nmore particularly, that

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 because the cash deposits become self-explanatory and\nsuch amounts were received by the assessee from the customers against which\nthe delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining\nthe addition of Rs.6,98,000 would not arise.\"\n8.38 The above cited cases pertain to period prior to demonetization; therefore

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

139 of the Act on 14-10-2016\ndeclaring total income of Rs.31,63,250/-, Hence, there is no additional\nincome disclosed by the assessee in the Return of Income filed u/s 153A of\nthe Act.\nThereafter notice u/s 143(2) of Act was issued on 25-06-2021 which\nwas duly served. Further notice u/s 142(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition of alleged commission is also rightly directed\nto be deleted