ITR 471 (SC). 2. State of UP Vs. Bahadur Singh & ors. (1983) 142 ITR 745 (SC) 3. Anil Soni v. ITO

99 TTJ 63Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#26137 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2020.

Judgments citing ITR 471 (SC). 2. State of UP Vs. Bahadur Singh & ors. (1983) 142 ITR 745 (SC) 3. Anil Soni v. ITO

SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

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

ITA 1460/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1460/Jp/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. F-100, Panchsheel Marg, C-Scheme, Ward-6(2), Jaipur-302001. Jaipur. Pan No.: Ahppg 4958 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Appeal Reads As Under: “1. The Assessee Could Not File The Appeal In Time At Cit Level As He Got Sick & Mentally Upset Due To Deep Financial Pressure As He Was Suffering From Financial Hardship & Seeked Condonation Of Delay Of 38 Days In Filing The Appeal But His Appeal Was Dismissed By Cit(A) Without Dealing On The Basis Of Merits Of The Case As Cit Sustained The Arbitrarily Disallowance By Ld. Ao Of Lump Sum Addition Of Rs. 4,00,000/- Out Of Other Expenses Without Any Basis. Also Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law By Arbitrarily Disallowing Lump Sum Amount Of Rs. 4,00,000/- Without Issuing Show Cause Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Violation Of The Principle Of Nature Justice.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 246(2)(b)Section 249(3)Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1460/JP/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, cuke I.T.O. Vs. F-100, Panchsheel Marg, C-Scheme, Ward-6(2), Jaipur-302001. Jaipur. PAN No.: AHPPG 4958 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of He…

SYMBYOSYS INTEGRATED SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1165/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1165, 4003 To 4005/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) Symbyosys Integrated Solutions Income Tax Officer 4(3)(4) Pvt.Ltd. Flat No. 1217, Room No. 637, Maker Chamber V, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 021 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan – Aagcs4206B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jayesh Dadiya, A.R Respondent By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 .10.2020 O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-9, Mumbai For A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y 2009-10, A.Y 2010-11 & A.Y 2011-12, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) For The Aforementioned Years. As The Issues Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interlinked & In Fact Interwoven, The Same Are Thus Being Taken Up & Disposed Off Together By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall Take Up The Facts Involved In The Assessee‟S Appeal For A.Y. 2008-09 As The Lead Case & The Adjudication Of The Same Shall Equally Apply To The Remaining Three Years. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ndoned a delay of 515 days in filing of the appeal which had occasioned on account of a lapse on the part of a staff member of the assessee‟s consultant. Also, reliance was placed on the order of the ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Ram lal & Sons Vs. ITO (2006) 99 TTJ 63 (Asr) wherein a delay of 7 years was condoned by the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the order of the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the assessee had failed to file the appeal with the CIT(A) within the stipulated time period, the same was thus rightly dismissed by the said…

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,o Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1066/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2013-14 cuke Shri Ram Bharose Sharma The ITO Vs. Plot No. 10, Sumer Nagar-III, Kalyan Nagar, Ward- 2(4) New Sanganer, Mansarovar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ATFPS 0763 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksj…