M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 272A(2)(k) was confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has contended as under :- (a) Delay in filing e-TDS statement in Form No. 24Q and 26Q was on account of the facts that CPC computer systems generate number for M/s. World Trade Park Ltd., Jaipur. acknowledging the receipt

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 272A(2)(k) was confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has contended as under :- (a) Delay in filing e-TDS statement in Form No. 24Q and 26Q was on account of the facts that CPC computer systems generate number for M/s. World Trade Park Ltd., Jaipur. acknowledging the receipt

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

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

Section, Sec 69 can be invoked only when the assessee has made investment and not recorded such investment in the books of accounts and offer no explanation or unsatisfactory explanation. Both the condition given in point 2 and 3 are cumulative and satisfaction of either of condition does not automatically triggers rigours of Sec 69. In other words

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRATEEK KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

section 68 of the Act which is based on information received from Investigation wing, Mumbai. It is 19 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur submitted that in compliance to the show cause notice issued, assessee filed following documents: (i) copy of confirmation letter of the above named cash creditor, (ii) copy of acknowledgment

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

68[or section 44BB orsection 44BBB], as the case may be, and the assessee has claimed his income to be lower than the profits or gains so deemed to be the profits and gains of his business, as the case may be, during such 69 [previous year,] ] The following clause (iv) shall be inserted after clause

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

68 ITD 1 (PAT.) 1. Penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) Penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) • 2. In the case mentioned above two In the case of Assessee the tax was major issues were addressed: deducted and deposited with the Government well before show • Firstly the assessee had not cause notice. deducted TDS u.s 194 C • The Statement of Return under

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

272A(1)(d), which are not\nsustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above\ngrounds of appeal at the time of hearing.\"\n3.\nWe find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days\neach. The assessee

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)

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. The assessee

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section, Sec 69 can be invoked only when the assessee has made investment and not recorded such investment in the books of accounts and offer no explanation or unsatisfactory explanation. Both the condition given in point 2 and 3 are cumulative and satisfaction of either of condition does not automatically triggers rigours of Sec 69. In other words

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

272A(1)(d) of the Act. In the Form No. 35 of that appeal, the appellant has clearly stated she is a 11 Anshu Sharma vs. ITO housewife and not carrying out any business. Therefore, the maintenance of books is not applicable to the facts of the appellant case and appears to be an afterthought on selection of the case

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

272A(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, Range for non compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that again an opportunity was provide to the appellant by the AO to explain its case, however, still no compliance was made on the date fixed

MANEESH JOSHI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Shri Maneesh Joshi आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 613/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2018-19 बनाम | The ITO, Vs. Ward-Dausa Dausa Ward No. 24, Jageer (Rural) Bandikui, Baswa Road, Bandikui, Tehsil: Baswa, Dausa-303 313 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGFPJ 8810N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojh

68 of the IT Act, 1961 of the assessee.The tax is being charged u/s. 115BBE of the 1.T.Act, 1961. The Penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the 1.T.Act, 1961 is also been initiated The Penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the I.T.Act.1961 is also being initiated.’’ 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order

SHRI RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

272A having been initiated after a period of more than 6 years were barred by limitation, and also by the 20 Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota. decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajinder Kumar Somani (supra), which had been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Noble Pictures (supra).” In the case in hand

SHRI SOHAN NATH,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68,944/-. The penalty so imposed by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any other grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing

SUNIL KUMAR NAYAK,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Ld. Ao.

272A(1)(d) of the act. 10. 5. Appellant reserves the right to add/alter/ modify/ delete any or all ground of appeal.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee did not file his ITR for the A.Y. 2018-19. Information in this case was gathered from AIR Information/TAS/26AS details. On the basis