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)

9 to 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

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)

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide solitary ground raised in this appeal the assessee challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. The brief facts related to the issue on hand are that the return of income

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)

section 274 r.w.s 270A of I.Tax Act without specifying the default of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming penalty for Rs. 20,148/- u/s 270A of the IT. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

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)

9 to “…Since the search in the case of the appellant was carried out before the amendment the addition ought to have been made in terms of the prevailing provision and therefore,the addition made by the AO invoking Section 115BBE provision of which came intoforce only on 01.04.2017 is not sustainable….” In view of the above, the lower

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)

9 to “…Since the search in the case of the appellant was carried out before the amendment the addition ought to have been made in terms of the prevailing provision and therefore,the addition made by the AO invoking Section 115BBE provision of which came intoforce only on 01.04.2017 is not sustainable….” In view of the above, the lower

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)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and an amount of Rs. 12,63,307/- being expenses incurred in cash to the income of the appellant. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC and u/s 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated separately. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 19 ITO vs. Vasudev Hemrajani

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 income is chargeable under section 115BBE of the Act. Since as per the facts of the present case, after appeal effect of the order of the ld. CIT (A), no addition remained sustained, which is chargeable under section 115BBE of the Act, therefore, no penalty under section 271AAC is leviable. 5.3 After

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,57,133/-. Penalty u/s 270A, u/s 271AAC. u/s 270A(9)(c), initiated\nseparately for misreporting/under reporting the facts as discussed above. Penalty\nu/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance of statutory notices. Penalty initiation for\nviolation of section

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

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

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

9)(a) and u/s 271 AAC. The\npenalty proceedings are premature and bad in law as the substantive additions are\ndisputed and not sustainable.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and\nerred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential in nature. The\ninterest charges

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

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

270A of the Act.\n6. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of\nhearing.\n7. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of\nappeal before or at the time of hearing.\nTheGroundsofAppealarediscussedinDetailasperbelow:-\n1. ThatorderofLearnedAssessingAuthorityisbadinlaw,illegalandagainstf\nactsandcircumstancesofthecase.\ni) That the SCN issued on Dt 19-04-2021 for hearing

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

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

9,41,075/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act.\n9. On culmination of the assessment proceedings, the Id. PCIT called for the assessment records for examination as per provision of section 263 of the Act. Ld. PCIT upon examination noted that as per concluding remark in para 5 of assessment order on page 163 to184, the assessee has accepted

TURAB ALI BOHRA,BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

9-21) held as under:\n“13. Thus, considering all the facets of the case the bench noted that the revenue did not\npinpoint any defects in the books of accounts, quantitative records available with the\nassessee, cash book and invoice presented in the assessment proceedings. Merely the\nassessee unable to record the mobile number it does not make

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

68-71 of paper book) Copy of Balance Sheet of Assessment Year 2013-14. (page no. 72 of paper book) Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Kota. Copy of Capital Account of Assessment Year 2013-14 (page no. 73 of paper book Copy of Assessment Order dated 22.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

270A or] clause (c) of\nsub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in\nrespect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 21[or sub-\nsection (1A)].\n(3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in\nrelation to the penalty referred