RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

cash deposit””and “gross receipts” being intimately associated to each other and accordingly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,43,028/-.” 3. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. The 3 Ram Dev Chandel vs. ITO ld. AR of the assessee

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

condone the delay before this Appellate Tribunal. 4 Jitendra Kumar TahilramanI vs. ITO 6. Now coming to the merits of the dispute, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in making additions

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

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

cash deposit in bank\naccount u/s 69A of the Act. The addition so made and the confirmation thereof by\nthe ld. CIT(A) being contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, the\nsame kindly be allowed in full.\n4.The ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in imposing

BHAWANI SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

cash deposited in the bank account and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same and hence the addition so made is prayed to be deleted 5. Without prejudice to above, the assessee could not attend the proceedings for genuine and bonafide circumstances and therefore, Id. AO and Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

delay without condoning the same, despite existence of bonafide and sufficient cause. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order dated 26.02.2014 was never served earlier and the appeal was filed promptly after receiving a copy in 2019. 3. That the Ld. AO erred in making an addition ofRs.17,26,200 as unexplained cash deposits

BHARTESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

condone the delay of 94 days. 4 Bhartesh Jain vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur 3. The assessee has assailed this appeal on following grounds; “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred in holding the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), 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)

condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit :- “1. The assessee trust was incorporated on 29/10/1994. It is not registered u/s 12A of the I.T. Act. As the income of the trust always remained below the maximum non taxable limit, no return of income was ever filed. On the basis of information

MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 220 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR PANKAJ GOYAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BHIWADI, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay so made by the assessee (legal heir) in filing the appeal before us is condoned. 3.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that the ld. AR of the assesee has filed an application under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 to accept the following ground being it purely of legal nature and arises

SATISH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

deposit in bank during F.Y. 2015-16 (relevant to A.Y. 2016-17) and F.Y. 2016-17 (relevant to A.Y. 2017-18) b. Producing computer generated books of accounts including Cash Book, Journal Bank Book, Sale Bill, Purchase Bill, Vouchers of expenses, Bank Statement, sale book before the AO c. Copy of VAT assessment order for the period 01/04/2016 to 31/03/20017

SITA RAM SAINI,CHOMU, JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

deposited into the bank. To get the peace the assessee had not filed the appeal. Your honour, the proper appeal effect yet had not passed and the AR advised the undersigned assessee to file an appeal with condonation of delay. 5. So the appeal with the request for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Your honour it has been held

DEV GROUP,ALWAR vs. ITO,WARD BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Him.

condone the delay 326 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and other decision cited by the assessee. 3. In this appeal, the assessee

ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(2), AJMER

cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay

SANJAY KUMAR SAINI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-2 , JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

cash deposit by the assessee. 2.2 Aggrieved by this order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal, but remained unsuccessful, as the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. 2.3 Against the order of dismissal of appeal, the assessee has now preferred the present appeal before me on the grounds mentioned here in above. 2.4 At this stage my attention

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 423 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 8 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

cash deposit; therefore, the same amount was\nadded to the total income of the assessee company treated as unexplained\nmoney as per provision of section 69A of the Act.\n13\nITA Nos.472 & 455/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred\nan appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay as observed by the registry. 5. Now coming to the merits of the appeal. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A of the IT. Act, 1961 at the business premises of the assessee company was carried out on 02.08.2017 which was subsequently converted into search and seizure action operation as per provision

JUGAL KISHORE CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

cash deposit u/s 69 of the IT. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the same. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay