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

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS under section 201(1A)\nwas to be allowed as deduction - Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of\nassessee]...”\n2.5. Thus, in view of the decisions set out hereinbefore, allowability of such interest\nexpense was one of the plausible views which was adopted by NFAC.\n2.6. It is a settled proposition that once a plausible view is adopted

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)

249(4)(b). However, the fact of filing of return of income and payment of tax was placed on record. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please 15 SDC Construction, Jaipur. be granted by quashing the entire order passed being against the principles of natural

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

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

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

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

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

3 Zila Parisad vs. ITO TDS Rs.1,93,752/-respectively. The AO observed that no tax had been deducted on such payments under section 194A and 194C respectively. The AO issued a showcase notice to the Appellant on 23/05/2019 under section 201(1)/201(1A). 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

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

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

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

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

TDS on interest payment of Rs. 15,97,572/- by ignoring the facts, settled legal position etc. Hence, the disallowance so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The AO has grossly

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.

3 BANK OF INDIA VS ADDL. CIT (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

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

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) demand. The appellant has not filed the appeal within the period specified u/s 249(2). There is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal . The appeal in his written submission has contended

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by National Faceless assessment Unit [ for short AO]. 2 Lalita Devi Sharma vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the appeal of the assessee on merits and dismissing it as inadmissible

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

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

In the result, Ground No. 1

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 249(4) (b) of the Act. The assessee being further aggrieved filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee under consideration is retail vendor of liquor