URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,NEAR CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,CAD CIRCLE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the AO is sustained and ground Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the CIT(E) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before the CIT (E), the assesee has reiterated that his submissions and which was not taken on record

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

271B of the Act)\nShri Shailendra Garg\nChak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur,\nGanganagar - 335 027\nबनाम\nVs.\nThe ACIT\nCircle-6\nJaipur\nस्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Prasant Daga, CA\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing\n: 18/02/2025

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of\npenalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year.\n(12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in\nwriting, by the Assessing Officer, 24[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of\npenalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year.\n(12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in\nwriting, by the Assessing Officer, 24[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit can be claimed by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings

ASHUTOSH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance under section 68/69 of the IT Act 1961. (v.) Share derivative transactions amounting to Rs. 3,32,29,00,597.22/- was made by you for the year under consideration. Further, it was mandatory for audit u/s 44AB of the IT Act 1961, as the transactions in derivatives were more than the threshold limit. However, Assessing Officer not initiated penalty

SHRI RAKESH GARG,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

271B of the Income Tax Act 1961 was imposed by the learned AO vide order dated 26.06.2018. The assesssee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), Ajmer on 20.07.2018. The learned CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order on 07.05.2019/27.05.2019 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It has been came to knowledge of the assessee

SHRI RAKESH GARH,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

271B of the Income Tax Act 1961 was imposed by the learned AO vide order dated 26.06.2018. The assesssee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), Ajmer on 20.07.2018. The learned CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order on 07.05.2019/27.05.2019 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It has been came to knowledge of the assessee

SHAILENDRA GARG,SIRGANGANAGAR 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)

271B of the Act) Shri Shailendra Garg cuke The ACIT Vs. Chak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur, Circle-6 Ganganagar – 335 027 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Prasant Daga, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date

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)

271B of the Act) Shri Shailendra Garg cuke The ACIT Vs. Chak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur, Circle-6 Ganganagar – 335 027 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Prasant Daga, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date