K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the said delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 4. In ITA No. 41/JP/2021 for A.Y 2018-19, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as he failed to appreciate that disallowance under section

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

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

va) of sub-section (1)\nof section 36; (ii) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii)\nand (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 56, deductions, so far as may be,\nin accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) and\nclause (c) of section 30, section 31 and sub-sections

NEERAJ DADHICH,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

condoned and appeal is admitted on merits. 5. The sole issue challenged by the appellant, in the grounds and the additional ground of appeal pertains to the disallowance of Rs.22,22,399/- made by the A.O. u/s Sec.36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to Provident Fund & ESI, a debatable issue

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. The impugned order thus, to\nthis extent is a nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves\nto be quashed.\n4. Rs.63,97,664/-1 The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an altogether new issue of the alleged\ndisallowance u/s 43B(e) of the Act on account of interest

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of ten days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 36(1)(va) to the income of the assessee. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire addition of Rs.2,07,643/- 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred

SH. ABHAY KUMAR GODHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-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, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 546/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Abhay Kumar Godha 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar Jaipur - 303 003 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPG 4721K अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR स

condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the action of the AO. The narration as made by the ld CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’5. DECISION: (For grounds 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 & 2) 5.1 Despite of the various opportunities

SINGODWALA WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(4), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 5.” 5.4 Following the discussions above, and considering the opinion expressed by Hon'ble Courts I rule that there is no condonation of delay application filed and therefore no sufficient cause given by the appellant to file the appeal delayed by 118 days. As a consequence the appeal filed beyond the due date of filing appeal without reasonable cause

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

delay of 121 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 2.4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company

RAJESH SINHA,JAIPUR vs. LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned and for that the applicant to deposit costs of Rs. 1000/- with “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. 4 Sh. Rajesh Sinha, Jaipur On Merits 8. Ld. AR for the appellant and Ld. DR for the department have argued the appeal today itself even on merits. 9. As noticed above, Central Processing Centre

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

delay\nof 2 days in filling this cross objection is condoned.\n\n4\nITA No. 360/JPR/2025 & CO No. 19/JPR/2025\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Co., Jaipur.\n\n5. The brief fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee, M/s\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, is a firm assessed as such,\nand filed its return of income

LODHA HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove with no orders as to costs

Bench: The Ao That There Is Mistake In The Schedule Of Pf & Esi In The Audit Report By Putting The Higher Figure Without Considering The Reply Of Assessee.

section 36(1)(va) by finding that there is inconsistency in the amount of ESI and PF details in the return and audit report which is not justified and not based on the facts of the case. The assessee has made representation before the AO that there is mistake in the schedule of PF & ESI in the audit report

AIJAL HANDICRAFTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD1(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 07 days because the assessee was out of Jaipur and could not file the appeal on account of travelling in official work and after returning from official tour the assessee filed an appeal immediately after consultation with this counsel. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the delay of filing the appeal

VIKAS DUGAR L/H OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

36(1)(va) of the Act without making any reference to any incriminating material found. Therefore, the disallowance/addition made by the AO for these 3 assessment years completed u/s 153A is undisputedly not based on any incriminating material found or seized during the course 6 ITA No. 597 to 599/JP/2017 M/s Rajasthan Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT of search

VIKAS DUGAR L/H OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

36(1)(va) of the Act without making any reference to any incriminating material found. Therefore, the disallowance/addition made by the AO for these 3 assessment years completed u/s 153A is undisputedly not based on any incriminating material found or seized during the course 6 ITA No. 597 to 599/JP/2017 M/s Rajasthan Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT of search

VIKAS DUGAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

36(1)(va) of the Act without making any reference to any incriminating material found. Therefore, the disallowance/addition made by the AO for these 3 assessment years completed u/s 153A is undisputedly not based on any incriminating material found or seized during the course 6 ITA No. 597 to 599/JP/2017 M/s Rajasthan Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT of search