JAIN WARE HOUSE,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

24)(xviii)(a), he thereupon proceeded to make the addition under section 69A. 3. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. There was a delay of approximately six months in filing the appeal but the ld. CIT(A) condoned

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC and under section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal was filed late and therefore, A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Sehkari Vipadan

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC and under section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal was filed late and therefore, A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Sehkari Vipadan

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC and under section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal was filed late and therefore, A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Sehkari Vipadan

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

24,333/- and payments made to contractors amounting to Rs.17,00/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC and under section 270A. 5. Aggrieved with this assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal was filed late and therefore, A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Sehkari Vipadan

NAFEES ALI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

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

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 24/12/2019 disclosing income of Rs.6,82,955/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 read with

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER JURISDICTION OFFICER- ITO, BALAGHAT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

condoned the delay so that the assessment can take place on merits. 8) CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that AO has proposed re-opening under section 147 on the basis of escaped income of cash deposition of RS 13,24

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case are that the Department received information that the assessee had made bogus transactions relating to sales and purchases of Rs.63,81,578/- during the financial year 2015-16 and Rs.1,13,37,168/- during the financial year 2016-17. Therefore, he reopened the case

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case are that the Department received information that the assessee had made bogus transactions relating to sales and purchases of Rs.63,81,578/- during the financial year 2015-16 and Rs.1,13,37,168/- during the financial year 2016-17. Therefore, he reopened the case

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,KOTMA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE,KATNI, KATNI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) dated 04/12/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The appeal was heard on 27/05/2022 on the aspect of condonation of delay; the appeal being time barred by 50 days. Subsequently, vide order dated 02/06/2022, the delay was condoned in view of the decision by the Apex Court

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

delay was condoned, and considering the fact of non-representation before the Assessing Officer (AO), with the assessee furnishing a paper-book (containing 79 pages), including written submissions, before him on 02/01/2020 (PB pg. 2), a remand report was sought by the ld. CIT(A) from the AO on 02/01/2020 itself (PB pg. 1). And who, vide his communication dated

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, REWA, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

delay was condoned, and considering the fact of non-representation before the Assessing Officer (AO), with the assessee furnishing a paper-book (containing 79 pages), including written submissions, before him on 02/01/2020 (PB pg. 2), a remand report was sought by the ld. CIT(A) from the AO on 02/01/2020 itself (PB pg. 1). And who, vide his communication dated

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

24,799/- as Income is Arbitrary and Unjust The entire cash deposit has been wrongly treated as income under section 69A. The AO failed to consider the nature of business, source of receipts, debit entries, withdrawals, and cash flow cycle. Even under presumptive taxation u/s 44AD, only 8% of gross turnover can be considered as profit. It is humbly prayed

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

24,799/- as Income is Arbitrary and Unjust The entire cash deposit has been wrongly treated as income under section 69A. The AO failed to consider the nature of business, source of receipts, debit entries, withdrawals, and cash flow cycle. Even under presumptive taxation u/s 44AD, only 8% of gross turnover can be considered as profit. It is humbly prayed