JEENKRIPA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED,VAISHALI NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 07.012.2019. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal:- 2 M/s Jeenkripa Township Pvt. Ltd. “ 1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without affording adequate opportunity

ANGURI DEVI KHANDELWAL (RADHA MOHAN KHANDELWAL (LEGAL HEIR),JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, 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. 390/JPR/2025 निधर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2018-19 Smt.Anguri Devi Khandelwal Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir) 674, Khandaka Mansion, Bordi Ka Rasta Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur – 302 001 बनाम Vs. The DCIT Circle-4 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIHPK 4203 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA राजस्व की ओरसे

condoned the absence of assessee or his Authorized Representative on earlier occasions, subsequently the necessary information and evidences were furnished by the assessee to assist in the completion of the assessment and since assessment was completed under section 143(3), the penalty under section 272A(1)(d) cannot be imposed. Under such facts and circumstances, considering the ratio

KIRTI KRISHNA TRADEMART PVT. LTD., BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WD 2, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

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

delay is condoned as the assessee has sufficient reasons. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed from the assessment order that the assessee had made cash deposit amounting to Rs.16.00 lacs and other credit entries appearing in the bank account of Rs.8,80,000/- and thus making the total amount of Rs.24.80 lacs in the bank account during

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)

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. The assessee

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

272A(1)(d), which are not\nsustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above\ngrounds of appeal at the time of hearing.\"\n3.\nWe find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days\neach. The assessee

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

BLUEPRINT INFRAHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ADIT CPC BENGALURU OR ITO WARD 6(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

condoned for adequate reasons demonstrated by the Revenue then even where delay occurs for reasons not attributable to the Revenue also. In the absence of any other argument, we do not see how in the facts as considered by different Courts in the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR, why they should not be applied. Once it has been