DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 3 days in filling this appeal in the interest of justice. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is an Individual and is engaged in export of gems & jewellery after purchasing it from local market under the name & style of M/s S Naveen Jewellers. The assesses had filed return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay of 3 days in filling this appeal in the interest of\njustice.\n6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the\nassessee is an Individual and is engaged in export of gems & jewellery\nafter purchasing it from local market under the name & style of M/s S\nNaveen Jewellers. The assesses had filed return

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

delay of 58 days filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,68,02,540/-. The assessee company claimed deduction

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay as the assessee was\nprevented with sufficient cause.\n4. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case,\nreturn of income was filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) of the Act on\n09.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,60,270/- and agriculture income\nof Rs.34,750/-. Subsequently, based on the information

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

purchases of Rs. 39,99,996/- from M/s Sun Diam, which sustaining of such addition of alleged payment of commission of Rs. 6400/- is unjustified and not maintainable in fact and in law.” 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase, without discharging his onus of providing copy of the statements of persons and material relied upon by him The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the addition of Rs.6,56,44,910’’. 2.1 At the outset of hearing

M/S VXA GLOBAL LLP,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

bogus purchases and making it as unexplained expenditure under section 37(1) and adding the same as income 9) The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Order of AO passed without following the procedure laid down in the act 10) The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in concluding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SHRI GANPATI DEVELOPERS, KOTA

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1348/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Shri Ganpati Developers, Vs. Circle-1, C-150, Road No. 5, I.P.I.A., Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 8967 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

purchase, payments etc. to verify the version advanced by the assessee. (3) The A.O. has not been able to adduce or bring on record any corroborative evidence to show that higher consideration was actually received by the appellant outside the books of accounts to match with the figures of difference appearing in the loose sheet. In fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

purchase of land. There is no witness of such cash payment. There is no evidence that the cash has actually changed hands. Moreover, how, when and to whom the alleged cash money was transferred also remain unanswered. It is true that other than the excel sheet, there is no evidence for undisclosed investment as discussed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

purchase of land. There is no witness of such cash payment. There is no evidence that the cash has actually changed hands. Moreover, how, when and to whom the alleged cash money was transferred also remain unanswered. It is true that other than the excel sheet, there is no evidence for undisclosed investment as discussed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

purchase of land. There is no witness of such cash payment. There is no evidence that the cash has actually changed hands. Moreover, how, when and to whom the alleged cash money was transferred also remain unanswered. It is true that other than the excel sheet, there is no evidence for undisclosed investment as discussed

M/S VXA GLOBAL LLP,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

bogus and non genuine purchases. 2 M/S VXA Global LLP, Jaipur. Issue of condonation of delay 2. As per deficiency

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

delay of 18 days\nin filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and\nOthers, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause.\n3.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

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

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

condone the delay of 96\ndays in filing the appeals by the assessee in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition\nvs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The fact as culled out from the records is that M/s Shiv

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

delay\nof 2 days in filling this cross objection is condoned.\n\n4\nITA No. 360/JPR/2025 & CO No. 19/JPR/2025\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Co., Jaipur.\n\n5. The brief fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee, M/s\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, is a firm assessed as such,\nand filed its return of income

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 68 days each in filing both the appeals before us. ITA NO. 1114/JPR/2025 AY 2017-18 : 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction activities. The appellant filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 07.11.2017 declaring total income