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

M/S HOTEL GAUDAVAN PVT. LTD.,PLOT NO.1, HOTEL COMPLEX, JODHPUR BARMER LINK ROAD, JAISALMER vs. CPC, BENGALURU/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

condoned. 6. As a lead case, for deciding the appeals, we take ITA No. 83/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2017-18 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee. “1. The ld.CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,58,973/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment

M/S HOTEL GAUDAVAN PVT. LTD.,PLOT NO.1, HOTEL COMPLEX, JODHPUR BARMER LINK ROAD, JAISALMER vs. CPC, BENGALURU/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

condoned. 6. As a lead case, for deciding the appeals, we take ITA No. 83/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2017-18 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee. “1. The ld.CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,58,973/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment

LOTUS DAIRY PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,5TH AND 6TH FLOOR CITY PLAZA,JHOTWARA ROAD BANIPARK JAIPUR 302016,RAJASTHAN INDIA vs. SANJAY NARGAS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 222 days in filing the appeal and decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. While completing the assessment under section

KAMLESH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE CPC , BANGELORE

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

condone the same. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.06.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 2,03,85,557/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 19.10.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 2,38,852/- towards employee’s contribution towards

FAIYAZ ALI KHATRI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SIKAR, SIKAR

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

condone the same. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.06.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 2,03,85,557/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 19.10.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 2,38,852/- towards employee’s contribution towards

PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOTA, KOTA

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

condone the same. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.06.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 2,03,85,557/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 19.10.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 2,38,852/- towards employee’s contribution towards

SHREE KRISHNA ABODES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

condone the same. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.06.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 2,03,85,557/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 19.10.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 2,38,852/- towards employee’s contribution towards

BAL SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 4(2), JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

condone the same. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.06.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 2,03,85,557/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 19.10.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 2,38,852/- towards employee’s contribution towards

DR B LAL CLINICAL LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

condone the same. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.06.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 2,03,85,557/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 19.10.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 2,38,852/- towards employee’s contribution towards

AURIGA IT CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT, DELHI

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

condone the same. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.06.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 2,03,85,557/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 19.10.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 2,38,852/- towards employee’s contribution towards

ANIL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

condone the same. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.06.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 2,03,85,557/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 19.10.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 2,38,852/- towards employee’s contribution towards

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

iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii)\nof sub-section (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per\ncent of such income and no deduction shall be allowed under any other\nclause of this section: Provided that no deduction shall be allowed from the dividend\nincome, or income

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