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)

269-JP-2024 ACIT vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar assessee for condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section

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)

269-JP-2024 ACIT vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar assessee for condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section

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)

269-JP-2024 ACIT vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar assessee for condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in fact the assessee is at risk. 4. The brief facts of the case in ITA No. 460/JPR/2024, as culled out from the records are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried

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

DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR SHRI NEMINATH JI SANWALAJI AMER,JAIPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay of 796 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. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like

DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR SHRI NEMINATH JI SANWALAJI AMER,JAIPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay of 796 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. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like

DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR SHRI NEMINATH JI SANWALA JI AMER,JAIPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay of 796 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. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like

DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR SHRI NEMINATH JI SANWALAJI AMER,JAIPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay of 796 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. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay is allowed. 4. Apropos Ground No 1 and 2 of the assessees, brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income (e-return) on 23-07-2016 declaring total income at Rs.22,96,01,790/- for the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny 4 HINDUSTAN SALES

MRITUNJAY KNOWLEDGE CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BARAN, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAN

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted on merits of the case. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed on 30/11/2019 on total income of Rs.85,09,780/- as against returned income of Rs. 4,25,160/- under section

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

CLASSIC AIRCON,INDIA vs. DCIT CPC, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: Cit(A)-Iii, Jaipur Was Rejected /Dismissed Vide Order Dated 20.09.2021 & Same Was Served Upon The Appellant On 20.09.2021 Itself Through E-Mail. Classic Aircon Vs. Dcit, Cpc

condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That both the lower authorities have erred in law well as in facts of the case in considering delayed payment of Employee’s share of EPF/ESI subject to 36(1)(va) and thereby made/upheld addition to the tune of Rs. 2,06,688/-. Classic Aircon vs. DCIT, CPC 2. That

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO, in making adjustments in the intimation under Section 143(1) which are outside the purview of section 143(1)(a). The action

NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of CPC in making disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC, paid before the due date of filing of return of income but, after the specified due date of respective Acts

RAJESH MOTORS (AUTO) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1) , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

condoned. Rajesh Motors (Auto) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 6 As a lead case, for deciding the appeals, we take ITA No. 79/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee. “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of CPC in making disallowance

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

condoned. Rajesh Motors (Auto) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 6 As a lead case, for deciding the appeals, we take ITA No. 79/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee. “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of CPC in making disallowance

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

condoned. Rajesh Motors (Auto) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 6 As a lead case, for deciding the appeals, we take ITA No. 79/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee. “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of CPC in making disallowance