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

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the time limit of 30 days from the date of the order” 4. The Assessing Officer also assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at Rs. 3,46,08,520/-. Issued demand notice and challan. Charge interest u/s 234A, u/s 234B, u/s 234C & u/s 234D of the Act. Issued penalty

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

section 234A and 234B of the I.T Act, 1961 on the appellant is wrong and bad in law and is not correctly calculated. 7.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of interest u/s 234A and 2348. In this regard it is stated that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

section 234A and 234B of the I.T Act, 1961 on the appellant is wrong and bad in law and is not correctly calculated. 7.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of interest u/s 234A and 2348. In this regard it is stated that charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

condone the delay as the assessee was vigilant and was prevented by sufficient cause and therefore, we admit this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the sale proceeds from the sale of rural agricultural land as income u/s 69A. 4 Roshal

MAYUR GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

section 154 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- 2 Mayur Global Pvt. Ltd. vs.ITO “1. The impugned Order U/s 154 dated 12/03/2018 which confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) dated 10/02/2023 is illegal

HARSH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. The impugned assessment order u/s 144 rws 147/148 dated 01.12.2016 as well as the notice u/s 148 and the action taken by the ld. AO u/s 147 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

PANKAJ MANI KULSHRESHTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

condone the delay of 40 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. 4 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 21.10.2019. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal; 1. The impugned order u/s 147 rws 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 21.10.2019 as well as the notice u/s 148 and action or proceedings u/s 147/148 are illegal

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

condone the delay. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the application of provision of sec. 145(3) without rejecting method of accounting and stock valuation. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the application of provision of sec. 69A for cash deposit in bank, whereas same

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

delay of 18 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 is prevented by sufficient cause. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 The impugned

RUDRAX SHINE LOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BUNDI vs. ITO WARD BUNDI, BUNDI

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

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

234A, B,C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 6. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing

KIRAN PABUWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

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

234A and 234B of the Act, 1961 is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the same. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 122 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed a condonation application dated 25-05-2022 praying therein

RADHESHYAM MEENA,RAJGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

9. In view of the discussion and reasons recorded above, in the interest of justice, we hereby allow the appeal for statistical purposes, set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A)

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

234A, 234B and 234C is charged as per law, as applicable in Assessee’s case. Issue notice of demand and challan accordingly.” Since Assessing Officer felt satisfied that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income for the year under consideration, it was a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

VINOD KUMAR CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay with following prayers: “Most Respectfully Showeth: 1. That the appellant is a senior citizen and a retired employee of the Indian Railways, earning mainly from pension income. 2. That the assessment order under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 20.11.2017, determining the total assessed income at ₹12,75,580, along with interest

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 569 days in view of the decision of Hon’ble 8 Ahluwalia Erectors & Febricators Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 7. Now, coming to the merits of the issue the brief facts