ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

section 144 2 Ishan Arora vs. ITO r.w.s. 147 of the Act by ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur [ for short AO] before him. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without condoning the same, despite existence

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

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is an individual and filed his return for AY 2015-16 u/s 139 on 01.02.2017 disclosing an income of Rs.2,65,530/-. A search & seizure operation under section

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is an individual and filed his return for AY 2015-16 u/s 139 on 01.02.2017 disclosing an income of Rs.2,65,530/-. A search & seizure operation under section

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is an individual and filed his return for AY 2015-16 u/s 139 on 01.02.2017 disclosing an income of Rs.2,65,530/-. A search & seizure operation under section

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

condone the delay of 96\ndays in filing the appeals by the assessee in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition\nvs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The fact as culled out from the records is that M/s Shiv

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KISHANGARH vs. ARUN AGARWAL, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1113/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Kishangarh बनाम Vs. Arun Agarwal B-16, Marble Mandi 3rd Phase RIICO Industrial Area Madanganj Kishangarh, Ajmer स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADQPA 2796 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: None. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date o

delay in filing of the appeal deserves to be condoned. We order accordingly. 8. Arguing on merits, today itself, Ld. DR for the department-appellant has submitted that ld. CIT(A), NFAC was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,22,42,606/-, which was made u/s 69C of the Act in view of the incriminating material collected

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal before me and\ndecide the appeal herein below.\n2.\nGround nos. 1 and 1.2 of the appeal raised by the assessee are inter-related and\ninter-connected and relates to challenging the order of the Id. CIT (A) on the ground\nthat impugned order under section 147/144 dated 19.03.2024 as well

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SHRI GANPATI DEVELOPERS, KOTA

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1348/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Shri Ganpati Developers, Vs. Circle-1, C-150, Road No. 5, I.P.I.A., Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 8967 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872." In Riveria Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) in ITA No. 250/Mum/2013 86 ITA No. 2748/Mum/2016 Date of Judgement/Order: 27/10/2017 held that- Assessing officer is not correct in coming to the conclusion that on money is exchanged between the parties based on a loose sheet found in the premises of a third

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

section 69B of the Act, we would like to reiterate the same for the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case of the assesse: Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

section 69B of the Act, we would like to reiterate the same for the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case of the assesse: Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

section 69B of the Act, we would like to reiterate the same for the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case of the assesse: Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery

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)

condoned. 5. As regards the decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, there is no dispute that the appeal filed against the deceased assessee is not covered under the provisions of section 292B and, therefore, the same is an invalid appeal liable to be dismissed. However, the appeal dismissed being invalid in limini due to the reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. A AND J INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, JHOTWARA

section 68 of the Act.\nIn para 7.6, the Assessing Officer observed that the entry providers\nhad admitted in their statements to have received Supreme Group\ncommission @ 2% for providing accommodation entry.\nIn this regard, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.29,60,000/-\nto the total income of the assessee, as provided u/s 69C

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

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69C in view of the scheme of those provisions." (11) Further, merely because in the present appeal the capital and loan transactions of the appellant are in cash and have been kept undisclosed and have been detected only during the course of search and seizure action does not make the appellant eligible for some extra premium benefit regarding exemption from

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

69C in view of the scheme of those provisions." (11) Further, merely because in the present appeal the capital and loan transactions of the appellant are in cash and have been kept undisclosed and have been detected only during the course of search and seizure action does not make the appellant eligible for some extra premium benefit regarding exemption from

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

69C in view of the scheme of those provisions." (11) Further, merely because in the present appeal the capital and loan transactions of the appellant are in cash and have been kept undisclosed and have been detected only during the course of search and seizure action does not make the appellant eligible for some extra premium benefit regarding exemption from