CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

249 (SC)\n": "It is now well accepted that this Chapter is a complete code in\nitself providing for self-contained machinery for assessment of undisclosed\nincome for the block period of 10 years or 6 years, as the case may be.\nIn case of regular assessments for which returns are filed on yearly\nbasis, section

SH. VIKESH KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, Ground No. 1

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

TDS amounting to Rs. 42,504/-. In view of these facts and considering the provisions as contained in section 249

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

section 249(2). The ld. A/R placing reliance on various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and the decision of 5 Zila Parisad vs. ITO TDS

SH. JAGTAR SINGH,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR

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

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

section 249(3) is "sufficient cause" and not "reasonable cause" Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether it was a sufficient cause or not. The cause given by the appellant is very general and unverifiable. If this kind of reason is accepted, then

STAR DEVELOPERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

TDS while passing an intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 11 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayer. ‘’1. That assessee-firm filed

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

TDS under section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the HUDCO. The ld. A/R, therefore, submitted that the action of the ld. CIT (A) is totally unjustified in holding the assessee as assessee in default for non deduction of tax at source on the interest payment made to HUDCO. He further submitted that it is neither

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RDB CARS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

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

section 201(1) shall be furnished to the Directors General of Income Tax (System) or to be person authorized by him. In the present case, the certificate of accountant furnished by the assessee has not been furnished in accordance with Rule 3 DCIT vs. RDB Cars Pvt. Ltd. 31ACB as amended w.e.f. 19-02-2013. Hence, this certificate cannot come

SMT. SANYA SURENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 1523/JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Sanya Surendra Mehta 301, Swadeshi Apartment, D-37-38 Shanti Path, Patrakar Colony, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur बनाम The ITO Ward - 6(1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABMPM 0118 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Cho

Section 249 of the Act. 5. Since the appellant has not filed return of incomeas well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is infurcutous and, therefore, is dismissed. 6. The appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.4 During the course of hearing

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271C of IT Act was initiated in order dated 29.03.2014 under sec. 143(3) of IT Act for which reason appears that ld. AO also appreciated the bona-fide belief of assessee that no tax is deductible on payment to foreign Supplier, having no permanent establishment in India. 7 Isys Softech Private Limited vs. ITO High Courts and finally

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Bench. However, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay With Following Prayer. ‘’’…It Is To Submit That The Cit(A) Order Was Passed On 26-10-2022 & Was Issued On The E-Mail Of The Bank. It Did Not Come To The Notice As The Bank System Marked The E-Mail As Spam Mail & Transferred The Same To Spam Folder. On Being Aware, We Requested For True & Certified Copy Of The Order & Received True & Certified Copy Of The Order On 06-04-2024 & Submitted Appeal Before Your Goodself On 31-05-2024 At Online Portal.

TDS), JAIPUR neither substantiated the statements made by it regarding this delay nor the statements, in my opinion are genuine cause of delay as per section 249

AO (SC), AVVNL, SIKAR,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

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

Section 249(2), the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of date of service of notice of 7 AO(SC) AVVNL, Sikar Vs ACIT, CPC (TDS

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Section 249(3) is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek\ncondonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right, but has to\nsatisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) by explaining the sufficient cause for\nthe delay.\n4. Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any\namount of delay, however, negligently caused, cannot

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 249(3) is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right, but has to satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. 4. Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused, cannot

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

249/-against gross profit of Rs. 3,96,69,455/- shown by the appellant in regular return of income, thereby resulting in trading addition of Rs.1,38,16,794/-. As in the regular assessment the A.O has already enhanced the turnover to Rs. 4,43,99,166/-. Therefore, the further addition of Rs. 90,87,083/- is sustained. Hence

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

249/-against gross profit of Rs. 3,96,69,455/- shown by the appellant in regular return of income, thereby resulting in trading addition of Rs.1,38,16,794/-. As in the regular assessment the A.O has already enhanced the turnover to Rs. 4,43,99,166/-. Therefore, the further addition of Rs. 90,87,083/- is sustained. Hence

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

249 to 254 of paper book. On perusal of the same, 18 M/S. DALAS BIOTECH LTD VS ACIT, ALWAR we find that the assessee as on 28-02-2009 has provided advances to both the parties through cheque which has been received back in the year under consideration through banking channel The assessee has also submitted bank book and bank