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

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

Section 253(1)(c)—Name of Chartered Accountant was mentioned in petition—Counsel could not have conjured up name of Chartered Accountant—Not only period of delay has to be taken in account but also quality of explanation, the legal assistance, if any, sought and rendered to litigant, and detriment that condonation of delay would cause to the opposing party

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

section 271(1)(c) is unjustified, as the disallowance of 1,53,549 towards cost of improvement was made solely due to the non-submission of supporting documents at the assessment stage. The Appellantnow seeks to submit additional evidence, including a Declaration Letter with "Laxmi Construction" for improvement work amounting to 193,000, along with the working of indexed cost

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

SHRI PREM KUMAR SANGHI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the penalty proceedings has been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2 ITA 291/JP/2018_ Prem Kumar Sanghi vs DCIT 2. That without prejudice to the ground No. 1 above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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; “1