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

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

36, Lalit Enterprises New Market Ward 2(2), Vs. Kota Rawat-Bhata Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AERPC0669J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 12/04/2022 mn?kks"k.kk

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

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

36, Lalit Enterprises New Market Ward 2(2), Vs. Kota Rawat-Bhata Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AERPC0669J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 12/04/2022 mn?kks"k.kk

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

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

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned delay in preferring appeal by assessee and decide case on merits - Held, yes[Paras 23 to 25] [In favour of assessee] In view of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that in the instant case there is sufficient cause with assessee on account of which appeal could not be filed on time. Even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied

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

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

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.

delay of 125 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is 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

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

delay of 10 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. 5. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

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

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

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