DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

undisclosed sources u/s 69A. 6 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making double addition of same income i.e. on one side addition was made of entire cash deposit during demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

undisclosed sources u/s 69A. 6 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making double addition of same income i.e. on one side addition was made of entire cash deposit during demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

undisclosed sources u/s 69A. 6 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in making double addition of same income i.e. on one side addition was made of entire cash deposit during demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both

KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: Him. 2

undisclosed income. 4. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.43,132/- on account of staff welfare expenses, Rs.11,307/- on account of conveyance expenses, Rs.67,844/-on account of DG set repair and running expenses, Rs 78,000/- on account of misc. expenses and Rs.13,056/-on account of delay payment charge expenses

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 :

condoning the delay in filing appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal in liminie. c. In not following the directions of Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ 10173/2024. d. In dismissing the appeal at threshold after hearing the appeal on merit as well as on legal points e. in giving factually incorrect or inconsistent finding or observations in the Impugned

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 :

condoning the delay in filing appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal in liminie. c. In not following the directions of Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ 10173/2024. d. In dismissing the appeal at threshold after hearing the appeal on merit as well as on legal points e. in giving factually incorrect or inconsistent finding or observations in the Impugned

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 :

condoning the delay in filing appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal in liminie. c. In not following the directions of Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ 10173/2024. d. In dismissing the appeal at threshold after hearing the appeal on merit as well as on legal points e. in giving factually incorrect or inconsistent finding or observations in the Impugned

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 :

condoning the delay in filing appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal in liminie. c. In not following the directions of Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ 10173/2024. d. In dismissing the appeal at threshold after hearing the appeal on merit as well as on legal points e. in giving factually incorrect or inconsistent finding or observations in the Impugned

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

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

Bench: Him.

condone the delay 326 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 and other decision cited by the assessee. 3. In this appeal, the assessee

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

undisclosed\nsources u/s 69A.\n6\nThat both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of\nthe case in making double addition of same income i.e. on one side\naddition was made of entire cash deposit during demonetization\nand on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit,\nthereby violated cardinal principle of taxation.\n7\nThat both

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

undisclosed\nsources u/s 69A.\n6\nThat both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of\nthe case in making double addition of same income i.e. on one side\naddition was made of entire cash deposit during demonetization\nand on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit,\nthereby violated cardinal principle of taxation.\n7\nThat both

JAIRAJ SINGH SOLANKI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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)

condonation of delay ignoring the sufficient material and evidences available on record, being the strong case on merit. Hence the order so passed by the Id. CIT(A) in gross breach of law and against the principal of natural justice and liable to be quashed and entire additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be deleted. 3.1. Rs.9

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee company has submitted an application praying for raising the following additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “That

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

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

condoning the delay in filing appeal\nand thereby dismissing the appeal in liminie.\nC. In not following the directions of Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ\n10173/2024.\nd. In dismissing the appeal at threshold after hearing the appeal on\nmerit as well as on legal points\ne. in giving factually incorrect or inconsistent finding or observations in\nthe Impugned

SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

delay being genuine deserve to be condoned. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment completed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where no notice u/s 148 was ever served upon / received by the assessee. Appellant prays that such reassessment proceedings concluded

SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

delay being genuine deserve to be condoned. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment completed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where no notice u/s 148 was ever served upon / received by the assessee. Appellant prays that such reassessment proceedings concluded

SH. SANJIV JHA,DHOLPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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)

undisclosed sources ignoring that amount of cash deposit is only Rs.10,10,000/- (correct amount Rs.10 lacs) and source of such deposit is out of earlier withdrawals from the bank account and out of the commission income of assessee. 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noticed that there is a delay of 80 days in filing the appeal