M/S PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA HUF,C-42, KALADEEP, VAISHALI NAGAR, GOKUL PATH, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay of 180 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,56,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Act by not accepting the contention of assessee that

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

Condon the delay in filling of appeal due to non-receipts of assessment order in\ntime and time taken in obtaining copy of Sale Deed from Purchaser & the Humble Appellant is\nsenior Citizen aged 70 Years.\nThat the Learned Assessing Officer grossly eared in initiating the Penalty proceedings u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\nThat

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 :

VII. Conclusion • The assessee’s silence to the Section 127 notice issued by the Central wing, Jaipur is deemed acceptance (J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust). • The transfer is a lawful administrative act within the Commissioner’s discretion (Pannalal Binjraj; Kashiram Aggarwalla). • Procedural safeguards were satisfied: notice, opportunity, and communication of reasons (Ajantha Industries; Genus Electrotech). • Under the faceless regime, territorial inconvenience

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 :

VII. Conclusion • The assessee’s silence to the Section 127 notice issued by the Central wing, Jaipur is deemed acceptance (J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust). • The transfer is a lawful administrative act within the Commissioner’s discretion (Pannalal Binjraj; Kashiram Aggarwalla). • Procedural safeguards were satisfied: notice, opportunity, and communication of reasons (Ajantha Industries; Genus Electrotech). • Under the faceless regime, territorial inconvenience

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 :

VII. Conclusion • The assessee’s silence to the Section 127 notice issued by the Central wing, Jaipur is deemed acceptance (J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust). • The transfer is a lawful administrative act within the Commissioner’s discretion (Pannalal Binjraj; Kashiram Aggarwalla). • Procedural safeguards were satisfied: notice, opportunity, and communication of reasons (Ajantha Industries; Genus Electrotech). • Under the faceless regime, territorial inconvenience

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 :

VII. Conclusion • The assessee’s silence to the Section 127 notice issued by the Central wing, Jaipur is deemed acceptance (J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust). • The transfer is a lawful administrative act within the Commissioner’s discretion (Pannalal Binjraj; Kashiram Aggarwalla). • Procedural safeguards were satisfied: notice, opportunity, and communication of reasons (Ajantha Industries; Genus Electrotech). • Under the faceless regime, territorial inconvenience

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No. 1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for discussions, and on this aspect of the matter ld. DR has not raised any West Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO objection. Accepting this consensus, we proceed

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

delay in filling these three appeals by the assessee.\n6.\nBefore we take up these appeals on its merits, after condoning the\ndelay, the Id. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No.\n1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for\ndiscussions, and on this aspect of the matter

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

delay in filling these three appeals by the assessee.\n6.\nBefore we take up these appeals on its merits, after condoning the\ndelay, the Id. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No.\n1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for\ndiscussions, and on this aspect of the matter

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 7,00,000/- unexplained money u/s 69A r. w.s 115BBE of the Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

MOTI RAM BAIRWA,BASSI, JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Section 56(2)(vii) when properties are encumbered or disputed b) the property was situated at a lower height and lacked proper water supply, further reducing its effective market value. The payment made was in line with the prevailing market rate. 6. The AO erred in law and on facts by adding Rs. 14,41,000 as unexplained expenses despite

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT LTD.,MANSAROVAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income For The Assessment Year.

56 days between filling of tax audit report and filling of ITR Form No.6 (04.10.2017 to 29.11.2017) ignoring the applicable provision u/s 43B. 4. That the Appellant assessee craves for a leave to add, alter and amend any Grounds of appeal at the time of appellate hearing.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

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

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.

delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is 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

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

56,070/- (i.e. Rs. 32,76,000/ cost of new house and Rs. 1,63,830/- being registry charges). The disallowance so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT (A), being contrary to the provisions of law and the established facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. Registry charges not included

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has e-filed his return of income on 09.03.2018 vide ack No. 433729340090318 showing total income of Rs. 6,58,230/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case

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