DR B LAL CLINICAL LABORATORY PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: Us.

condone the same. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,95,444/- on account of delay payment of ESIC and PF ignoring this fact that payment has been made on or before the due date of filing

LALIT KUMAR CHABRA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay of 157 days in filing of appeal, please condone. 2. The impugned order dated 12.05.2020 passed by CPC u/s 154 is bad in law and on the facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other statutory reasons, and hence, the same may kindly be quashed and in any case, the impugned additions made there

LALIT KUMAR CHABRA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay of 157 days in filing of appeal, please condone. 2. The impugned order dated 12.05.2020 passed by CPC u/s 154 is bad in law and on the facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other statutory reasons, and hence, the same may kindly be quashed and in any case, the impugned additions made there

GOYAL SALT PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal: ‘’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

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

delay of 135 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is 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

RAJESH MOTORS (AUTO) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1) , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

delay of 135 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is 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

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

delay of 135 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is 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

NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

delay of 154 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is 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

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

SH. SANJAY PORWAL,50, GRANADE MARG, PRATAP NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU/ ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. 4. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under:- ‘’The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,90,435/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards

CLASSIC AIRCON,INDIA vs. DCIT CPC, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: Cit(A)-Iii, Jaipur Was Rejected /Dismissed Vide Order Dated 20.09.2021 & Same Was Served Upon The Appellant On 20.09.2021 Itself Through E-Mail. Classic Aircon Vs. Dcit, Cpc

condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That both the lower authorities have erred in law well as in facts of the case in considering delayed payment of Employee’s share of EPF/ESI subject to 36(1)(va) and thereby made/upheld addition to the tune of Rs. 2,06,688/-. Classic Aircon vs. DCIT, CPC 2. That

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 5.1 The Bench further during the course of hearing observed that Ground No. 1 to 3 of the assessee in this appeal of the assessee are regarding disallowance of employee’s contribution of PF and ESI deposited belatedly but before due date of filing of return of income U/s 139(1

DYNAMIC CABLES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Filing Income Tax Return Even After Supreme Court Judgement & High Court Judgement (Including Rajasthan High Court & Itat Jaipur Bench) On This Issue In Favour Of The Assessee.

36(1)(va) of the Act deposited before filing income tax return even after Supreme Court judgement and High Court Judgement (including Rajasthan High Court and ITAT Jaipur bench) on this issue in favour of the assessee. 4.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 02 days in filing the appeal

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

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

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

delay in filing of the present appeal had crept in on account of bonafide reasons, therefore, 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

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

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

delay in filing of the present appeal had crept in on account of bonafide reasons, therefore, 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

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

Appeals are allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

delay in filing of the present appeal had crept in on account of bonafide reasons, therefore, 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