URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 270A” the fact of AO cannot be considered for “MISREPORTING” and thus the AO was suppose to grant immunity u/sec. 270AA and this order of AO is requested to be quashed. The assessee has applied for immunity u/sec. 270AA by filing form 68 (Rule 129) which also has been denied by AO since considered such disallowances as “MISREPORTING

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)

8-9[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act other than the provisions of section 271AAB, direct that, in a case where the income determined includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

8] “…As regards the assessee's second, without prejudice, argument, i.e., qua non retrospectivity, we find considerable force therein. Section 1(2) of the Amending Act provides that save as otherwise provided therein, it shall come into force 'at once'. The same only conveys the intent for, except where a later date is specified, the legislation to take immediate

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

8] “…As regards the assessee's second, without prejudice, argument, i.e., qua non retrospectivity, we find considerable force therein. Section 1(2) of the Amending Act provides that save as otherwise provided therein, it shall come into force 'at once'. The same only conveys the intent for, except where a later date is specified, the legislation to take immediate

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,230/- in ROI filed on 12.06.2019 in response to notice issued u/s 153A. In this case, while passing scrutiny assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 20.05.2021, after making addition on account of undisclosed interest income of Rs. 1,41,000/- the assessment completed on the income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. The ld. AO also noted that keeping in view the defects, pointed out above in para 5 given supra, and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the claim of expenses under various heads have been claimed

BHURAMAL RAJMAL SURANA & SONS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Her; (B) No Proceedings Were Directed To Be Initiated In Original Appeal Order Dt. 28.02.2022 And/Or; (C) It Has Been Passed In Haste Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant.

68 of the Act and Rs. 71,35,200/- under section 41(1) of the Act. The AO in the assessment order also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act on account of addition of Rs. 32,91,000/- and penalty under section 270A on the addition of Rs. 71,35,200/-. 5.1 Against

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8 per cent under section 44AD-Assessing Offer\nalso made certain addition under section 68 in respect of unexplained cash credit-\nCommissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal held that once addition was made on\nestimate basis under section 44AD, no separate addition could be made is respect\nof cash credit under section 68-Whether there

GURJANT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68, 69, 694,698,69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assesse in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on or before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

section 68 of the Act. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued on 17.12.2019 stating that the on verification propose randomly telephonic calls were and mostly debtors not accepted or not remember about any purchase as discussed and tabulated at page 8 of assessment order ( see g) of para 6 above). The ld. AO also informed that notice

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

270A, 271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not sustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. We find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days each

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 44AB.\nThe AO failed to point out any specific defects in the books of accounts that\nwould warrant rejection u/s 145(3). The rejection was mechanical and arbitrary\nwithout proper application of mind.\n2. The ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the arbitrary estimation\nof income at 8% of turnover and making addition

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act.” 16. However, the respondent/revenue will be at liberty to proceed with the assessment process, albeit, under the provisions of Section 144B of the Act. Needless to add, if a show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order is served on the petitioner, an opportunity would be given to the petitioner to file its response/objections

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

68,509 without considering that the due date for depositing PF was a public holiday. - 5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred by invoking section 115QA of the Act and further erred by charging additional tax of distributed income in relation to buy back of shares

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

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice dated 21.12.2018 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section 271AAB(1)(a)/271AAB(1)(c) should not be initiated against the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of Rs. 33,00,000/- vide penalty order

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

8 (Party 3) Page No. 43 of Exhibit 8 (Party No.3) Page No. 41 of Exhibit 8 (Party 3) It is on the basis of these papers that the ld. AO has observed that the assessee indulged in accounted sales. After working out the unaccounted sales, which has been done by the ld. AO arbitrarily decoding the figures by adding

M/S BANNA LAL JAT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

Appeal is partly allowed by reducing the penalty to the

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial 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) 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

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income, as defined u/s 271AAB of the Act, unearthed during the search action carried out u/s 132 of the Act. It is to be noted that the provisions of section 271AAB and section 271(1)(c) of the Act simultaneously