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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 271(1)(c).\n4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred\nin confirming the penalty of Rs.5,18,55,995/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 without considering that the assessee was eligible for\ndepreciation otherwise and the deduction was claimed due to mistake of\ncounsel which

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) on the additions sustained by\nthe Ld.CIT(A).\n4. The appeal against the penalty order was preferred by the assessee which was\nconfirmed by the CIT(A) and the penalty order was received by the assessee on\n28.08.2024.\n5. Somewhere in the first week of September, 2024, the assessee approached his CA,\nShri Jambu Kumar Agarwal

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SIRGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 541 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 8/JP/2025 2011-12 NFAC Delhi, dated 27-09- Dismissed the appeal 401 days Appeal u/s 2023, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(b). On receipt of the orders, he consulted a Chartered Accountant and was advised to wait till the corrected orders comes so as to decide which order is against which appeal and to deal with the connected finding in an appeal. In the meanwhile assessee failed ill and was advise to take rest and in that process

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical

section 271(1) of the Act and delay of 610 not condoned 213 days 1559/JP/2024 2015-16 Appeal u/s 271

SHRI NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “ 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio and therefore deserves to be quashed