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

SHRI NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “ 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio and therefore deserves to be quashed

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay of 240 days in filing of both these appeals. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals as under :- ITA No. 152/JP/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 : “ 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay of 240 days in filing of both these appeals. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals as under :- ITA No. 152/JP/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 : “ 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay of 240 days in filing of both these appeals. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals as under :- ITA No. 152/JP/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 : “ 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

condoned. 4. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in treating the assessee as representative assessee while it should be treated as AOP, because it has derived income which is other than the income derived from investments as specified in section

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

condone the delay of 103 days in filing the\npresent appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit.\n5.\nSuccinctly, the facts as culled out from the records is that return\ndeclaring an income of Rs.2,80,750/- was e-filed by the assessee on\n29.09.2010 and assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed on\n20.03.2013

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoning the delay. The individual grounds of appeal are discussed here under- Grounds of Appeal 1. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliance of opportunity granted by him whereas the appeal required

DEV GROUP,ALWAR vs. ITO,WARD BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Him.

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO-CIT(A) upheld order of AO- Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)-Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

JAGDISH PRASHAD PANCHAL,JHALAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHALAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay in filing the appeal in compliance of the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of Rs. 45,20,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of old currency having been deposited by the Appellant which includes

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

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

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

53,76,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in bank accounts alleging the same to be income chargeable to tax u/s 69A without appreciating the facts of the case and the scope of provisions of above section. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in making

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

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

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

53,76,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in bank accounts alleging the same to be income chargeable to tax u/s 69A without appreciating the facts of the case and the scope of provisions of above section. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities has grossly erred in making

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before us. 4 Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and was residing in Delhi. During the year under consideration the assessee had income from professional receipt from the company named Synergy Property Development Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. The assessee

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest income on FDRs and security deposits. Notices were issued

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest income on FDRs and security deposits. Notices were issued

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest income on FDRs and security deposits. Notices were issued

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

section 271(1)(c) is unjustified, as the disallowance of 1,53,549 towards cost of improvement was made solely due to the non-submission of supporting documents at the assessment stage. The Appellantnow seeks to submit additional evidence, including a Declaration Letter with "Laxmi Construction" for improvement work amounting to 193,000, along with the working of indexed cost

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been