SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, 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)

97,113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 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

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, 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)

97,113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 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

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT 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)

97,113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 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

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)

97,113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 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

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT 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)

97,113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 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

SHAILENDRA GARG,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, 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)

97,113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 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

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)

97,113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 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

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT 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)

97,113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 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

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)

97,113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 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

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT 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)

97,113/-u/s that ‘’I have no alternative 2(22)(e), professional though to decide the charges Rs.73,000/- appeal on the basis of u/s 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

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

97,113/-u/s\n| 2(22)(e), professional\n| charges Rs.73,000/-\n| u/s 40(a)(ia),\n| Rs.7,44,333/- towards\n| untraced receipt lying\n| in suspense a/c of\n| Mahka Bharat\n| Rs.s24, 12,930/-, sales\n| tax demand of\n| Rs.4,078, telephone\n| expenses 24,535,\n| business promotion\n| expenses Rs.15,015 &\n| vehicle

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

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

97,113/-u/s\n2(22)(e), professional\ncharges Rs.73,000/-\nu/s 40(a)(ia),\nRs.7,44,333/- towards\nuntraced receipt lying\nin suspense a/c of\nMahka Bharat\nRs.s24, 12,930/-, sales\ntax demand of\nRs.4,078, telephone\nexpenses 24,535,\nbusiness promotion\nexpenses Rs.15,015 &\nvehicle expenses\nRs.1,47,989/-\nand\ndisallowance of\ndeduction u/s 80C\nRs.1.00 lac\n1554/JP/24\n2014

SMT. RUKSANA,JHALAWAR vs. ITO, WARD, JHALAWAR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 192/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/H Of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bjeps 1293 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kota Dated 21/09/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 15.03.2014 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Being Debatable Issue & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2.1 Rs.13,45,442/-: The Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3). The Provision So Invoked By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice- that being the life-purpose

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), 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. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

condone the delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 9. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from Natani Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. as salary being Director of the company, house property and interest also. Return of income was electronically filed on 16/12/2015 declaring total income

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), 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. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

condone the delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 9. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from Natani Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. as salary being Director of the company, house property and interest also. Return of income was electronically filed on 16/12/2015 declaring total income

MAYUR GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

delay of 443 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. 4. The fact as culled out from the record is that the assessee

JAIPUR CITY TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

97,537/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act which is illegal and bad in law.” 2. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee has filed the present appeal on 14/11/2019 against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) relating to A.Y. 2014-15 alongwith an application seeking 2 Jaipur City

SHRI PADAM PRABHU JAIN AUSHDHALAYA VIKAS SAMITI,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

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

condonation of the delay in filing my\nappeal against the order for rejection of our application u/s 12AB of\nIncome Tax Act. We are aware that timeline adherence is of utmost\nimportance in legal matters, and I deeply regret any inconvenience\ncaused by my delayed submission of appeal against the order dated\n23.11.2022.\nITA No. 97 & 98/JPR/2024\n3\nPadam Prabhu