KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

40,116/- made by the A.O.\r\nIt is also noteworthy to mention that the CBDT vide its Circular No. 13/2023\r\ndt.26.07.2023 has directed the Department to allow the condonation of delay\r\nwhere the return has been filed after due date as to claim made u/s 80P by the\r\nassesseswith following narration.\r\n\"Sub: Condonation

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 :

40-42 43-46 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 17/10/23 43-46 47 Show cause notice dated 18/12/23 47 48-51 Show cause notice dated 29/01/24 48-51 52-56 Show cause notice dated 01/02/24 52-56 57-59 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 14/02/24 2016-17 Replies of the assessee 60 Reply dated 3/11/23 61-62 Reply dated

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 :

40-42 43-46 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 17/10/23 43-46 47 Show cause notice dated 18/12/23 47 48-51 Show cause notice dated 29/01/24 48-51 52-56 Show cause notice dated 01/02/24 52-56 57-59 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 14/02/24 2016-17 Replies of the assessee 60 Reply dated 3/11/23 61-62 Reply dated

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 :

40-42 43-46 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 17/10/23 43-46 47 Show cause notice dated 18/12/23 47 48-51 Show cause notice dated 29/01/24 48-51 52-56 Show cause notice dated 01/02/24 52-56 57-59 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 14/02/24 2016-17 Replies of the assessee 60 Reply dated 3/11/23 61-62 Reply dated

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 :

40-42 43-46 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 17/10/23 43-46 47 Show cause notice dated 18/12/23 47 48-51 Show cause notice dated 29/01/24 48-51 52-56 Show cause notice dated 01/02/24 52-56 57-59 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 14/02/24 2016-17 Replies of the assessee 60 Reply dated 3/11/23 61-62 Reply dated

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

40,31,603/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution toward PF & ESI by not appreciating that (i) The above addition is not on account of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return as per section 143(1

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

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

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

condoned. 3 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Nandi International and engaged in import and trading of Glass Chaton, Glass beads and silver jewellery. The assessee filed his return of income on 27/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 9,01,270/-. The case

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

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several 4 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

Section 250 r.w.s. 251 of the IT Act. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal as there is no allegation that delay in filing the appeal is mala fide or it is deliberate, rather it is bona fide based on reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It is further submitted that an assessee

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

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

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

Section 147/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 14.12.2016. 2 Vishnu Pareek vs. CIT(A) 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. CIT(A) seriously erred in facts and law in dismissing the appeal on account of delay of 162 days in filing of appeal before him against

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

40(a)(ia), documents on record Rs.7,44,333/- towards untraced receipt lying in suspense a/c of Mahka Bharat , Rs.s24,12,930/-, sales tax demand of Rs.4,078, telephone expenses 24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed