ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ld.AO, without

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ld.AO, without

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

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

condone the delay of 83 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of distribution of milk of Jaipur dairy to the milk booths. He had filed his ITR for the relevant year, declaring total

M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay, an Affidavit of Shri Phool Chand Chaudhary, Executive Director 3 M/s. Om Shiv Properties Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. of assessee company along with an application dated 28.10.2020 under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed, which reads as under :- Application U/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. 1. That the appellant is submitting appeal against order passed

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 40A(3) is unjustified and should be\nreversed.\n3.\nThe salary disallowance is without merit and should be deleted.\nThe Appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to:\nSet aside the impugned order and delete the additions/penalties.\nGrant any other relief as deemed just and proper.\"\n9.\nThe Id. AR of the assessee to support the contention

SURBHI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

section 40A(3). 6. Under the fact and circumstances of the case to the Ld. AO was not justified in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C, 7. That the appellant reserved his right to add, amend, or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date of appeal hearing.” 3 Surbhi Agarwal vs. ITO 3. At the outset

DIGAMBER SINGH & SONS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KUMHER vs. ITO, WD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 16 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 and therefore, we admit this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee

S R AUTOMOBILES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

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

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

condone the delay of 535 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 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 was prevented by sufficient cause. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the return declaring income

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay and the same is condoned.\n8. The brief facts as culled out from the records are that asessee is a company and derives income from retail and wholesale sale of woods, timber, laminates and adhesives and allied activities. A search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay of 41 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs.\nMst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause in bringing the present appeal with\ndelay and the same is condoned

RANJAN SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 143(3)/147 and 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus raising following grounds of appeals in the above mentioned appeals; SHRI RANJAN SHARMA VS ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR ITA NO.238/JPR/2025 – A.Y. 2010-11 ‘’1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts

RANJAN SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(2), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 143(3)/147 and 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus raising following grounds of appeals in the above mentioned appeals; SHRI RANJAN SHARMA VS ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR ITA NO.238/JPR/2025 – A.Y. 2010-11 ‘’1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

40A(3) at Rs 1,66,942/-. 3 CIT(A), reasons for deleting the addition:- The ld CIT(A) vide order dated 24.06.2009 in appeal No.392/2008-09 has decided the case as under:- Deleted the additions: 1. Diesel expenses at Rs.11,56,314/-, 2.Arbitration Award receipts at Rs.8,13,194/, 3Purchase of material like stone and rubble, sand and gritt

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the ground no

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. On merits, the ld. AR raised various contentions and relied on the written submissions which read as under:- “Ground of Appeal No. 1 4 Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur 1. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the relavant assessment

FINOVA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

delay of 262 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 and therefore, we admit this appeal. 6. The brief facts related

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA RAJASHTAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarsubhash Pareta, 3/148, Basant Vihar, Dada Bari, Ganesh Talab, Kota - 324009 Pan No. Aggpp4046H ...... Appellant Vs.

condonation of delay in filling of appeal though the appellant filed reasons etc. 2. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on Law and Facts in making disallowance of Rs. 46,122.00 being 20% out of various expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not considering the ground. 3. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on Law and Facts

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD, 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

delay in filing the present appeal is condonable and is hereby condoned. 4. In this appeal, the assessee is mainly aggrieved by the order imposing the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the quantum appeal from which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

condone the delay in filing in some of the present appeals. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that on account of not filing the appeals by the revenue within the period of limitation, their vested right to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was taken away. We have rejected such an argument firstly by holding