CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

249-274/Vol-2. Appeal filed by the revenue before Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur was dismissed. Copy of the order of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur is at PB page 275-277/ Vol-2. (iii) AY 2017-18 The assessment of immediate preceding year AY 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein no addition u/s 14A was made. The copy

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

2.- Where in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of this section. Explanation 3. In Explanation 1 and in 12 SDC Construction, Jaipur. sub-section (3)." tax on the total income determined under sub- section

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

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

TDS, applicable was also\ndeducted. Confirmations of ledger account duly signed by the said\ncreditor bearing complete name, address and PAN. Further, it was\nnoticed that some of the other creditors are old and are coming from\npreceding years as their opening balances are available in their\nrespective ledger accounts. In most of the cases, closing balances are\nthere which

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

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

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

TDS\nwas deducted there on\". From this it is also further corroborated that\nfigure of 2.4% as found in the seized pen drive pertains to extra interest\nhowever the argument of the assesse that the additional interest was\nnot paid has not been specifically accepted by the Hon'ble ITAT on\nmerits.\n5.8 On page 122 of the order

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

In the result, Ground No. 1

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

2,42,239/-. The whole tax liability on the same would certainly be covered by the amount of TCS and 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 Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal, prayed that the appeal of the assessee be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer after 4 Zila Parishad, Baran. condoning the delay as assessee has in possession of necessary certificates which

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)

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 01.02.2017. Conclusively, the AO made addition in the hands of the assessee by holding as under:- ‘’3. I have carefully considered that submission of the assessee and found the same not tenable in view of first provision to Section 201(1) r.w.r. 31ACB of the I.T. Rules, 1962 as amended

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.

249(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and do not constitute ‘’sufficient cause’’ as per this section as well as section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is held that the inordinate delay in filing of this appeal is merely on account of negligent or sheer carelessness on part of the appellant

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

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

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

DEEPAK JAIN,C-SCHEME vs. ITO WARD 2(1), BHAGWAN DAS ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

249 (Amritsar) 1.22.ii G. Koteswara Rao [2015] 64 taxmann.com 159 (Visakhapatna - Trib. 1.22.iii Rajat Shubra Chatterji, ITA No. 2430/Del/2015, ITAT Delhi Bench 1.23. The above-mentioned judgments have been recently followed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Shri Navrattan Kothari, in ITA No. 425/JP/2017, wherein under identical set of facts the entire re-assessment proceedings

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

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