DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

delay of\n18 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned, having\nregard to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCollector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471\n(SC).\n5.\nAppeal has also been argued on merits. Assessee-appellant\nhas raised following grounds: -\n\"1.\nThat order of Learned

MGG INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

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

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

270A(2) r.w.s.270A(8) of the Act, on account of interest on Income Tax Refund. Penalty proceedings under section 271A of the Act were initiated, and thus Penalty of Rs. 1,96,362/- was imposed under section 271A of the Act on 28/01/2022 on account of under reporting of income. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

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.”

9. The delay may kindly be condoned.” 3 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO 2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeal submitted that the assessee is serious on the duties and the delay of 40 days so that I had no knowledge about the appeal having been disposed off resulted in delay. Considering the decision

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)

270A, 271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not sustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. We find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days each

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

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

270A for AY 2020- 21 in my mobile on 14.06.2025. At that time when I browsed the e-filing portal of society, it came to my notice that the appellate orders for AY 2017-18, 2020-21 & 2021-22 has been passed. 6. When I consulted my CA, it was advised to file the appeal against these orders for which

MOHAN LAL YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD -1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1223/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Mohan Lal Yadav Vs. The ITO C/o Shri R.S. Poonia, CA Ward 1(1) D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg Jaipur Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ARMPY 7388Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Ms. Payal Jhorar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ga

9. That the delay of 94 days was due to unaware about the adverse ex- parte order dated 25.03.2025. 10. That I was unaware about the adverse order passed by CIT (Appeals) and same is the bonafide reason of delay in filing of appeal which is beyond my control. 11. The delay was bonafide, unintentionally and beyond my control

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

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.\r\nA claim for deduction under section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a\r\nreturn filed beyond the time permitted under the Act, ignores the perspective that\r\nsees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in a valid return pre-\r\ncondition

JAMBO CREDIT AND THRIFT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO-6(1),, JAIPUR

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 12.06.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, As Thereby The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Has Been Dismissed.

condone the delay in filing of the appeal. We order accordingly. However, the applicant is burdened with costs of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. 5 Jambo Credit and Thrift Co-operative Society Ltd. Jaipur. Arguments have also been advanced in the appeal, on merits, today itself by both the sides. We proceed

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

9)(a) and u/s 271 AAC. The\npenalty proceedings are premature and bad in law as the substantive additions are\ndisputed and not sustainable.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and\nerred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential in nature. The\ninterest charges

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay\n121-165\n8\nBank Statement and Manager's note on currency deposited\n166-174\n9\nCovering Letter for further submission\n175\n10\nLedger (duplicate)\n176-213\n11\nBank Statement\n214-247\n12\nITR form\n248-291\n13\nCited Case Laws\n292-314\n14\nBash Book (Separate)\n1-565\n10. The Id. AR of the assessee in addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BEAWAR vs. SANGEETA BAFNA, MEWARI BAZAR BEAWAR

13. In view of the above discussion, ITA No

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Feeling Aggrieved By Assessment Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2022-23. Vide Said Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Finally Computed Taxable Income Of The Assessee As Under:- “Final Computation Of Taxable Income: Sl. No. Description Amount (In Inr)

section 145 of the Act and on the basis of above discussion a variation of Rs.1,64,11,510/-which is total of above discussed claims is made. I am also satisfied that the assessee is liable for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under reporting of income which is also initiated.” 4. When the assessee challenged the assessment

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

delay of 6days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

delay of 6days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds