SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay of 58 days in filing the\nappeal before us.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee the assessee is a\ncompany engaged in hotel business. The assessee filed its return of\nincome on 30.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs. (-) 15,24,86,880/-. A search\nwas conducted on 30.10.2014 in the case

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

153B(2)(b). That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself.—Sahara India (Firm

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

153B(2)(b). That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself.—Sahara India (Firm

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

153B(2)(b). That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. It is therefore not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable. Where the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order itself.—Sahara India (Firm

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)

B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa a Jh xxu Xkks;y ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 826 & 827/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 cuke Shri Upendra Kumar Soni The ACIT Vs. 19D, New Colony, Gumanpura

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)

B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa a Jh xxu Xkks;y ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 826 & 827/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 cuke Shri Upendra Kumar Soni The ACIT Vs. 19D, New Colony, Gumanpura

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

153B(2)(b). That such an approval of a superior officer cannot\nbe a mechanical exercise has been emphasized in several decisions. It is therefore not\ncorrect on the part of the Revenue to contend that the approval itself is not justiciable.\nWhere the approval is granted mechanically, it would vitiate the assessment order\nitself.—Sahara India (Firm

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay and the same is condoned.\n8. The brief facts as culled out from the records are that asessee is a company and derives income from retail and wholesale sale of woods, timber, laminates and adhesives and allied activities. A search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay of 41 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs.\nMst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause in bringing the present appeal with\ndelay and the same is condoned

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)

section 69B of the Act, we would like to reiterate the same for the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case of the assesse: Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery

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)

section 69B of the Act, we would like to reiterate the same for the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case of the assesse: Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery

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)

section 69B of the Act, we would like to reiterate the same for the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case of the assesse: Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery

JITENDRA SADHWANI ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 153B(1)(b) of the Act by raising the following grounds of appeal; ‘’1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant to put forth merits of his case has passed an ex-parte order which is grossly against

HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B((1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 31.03.2015. 2 Harsh Agarwal vs. ACIT 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 112 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation