JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

144B of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the AO. Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 2.1 In ITA No. 788/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 12,51,906/- imposed

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

144B of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the AO. Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 2.1 In ITA No. 788/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 12,51,906/- imposed

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

GAJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAV THROUGH L/H VIPIN DEVI SRIVASTAV,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House Property’’, Profit and Gains from Business’’ and ‘’Income from other sources. In this case, it is noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with Section 144B

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)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] passed by the DCIT, Circle – 2, Kota for one year and for two year by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department [ for short AO]. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 1007 to 1009/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2017-18, 2020-21 & 2022-23 are inter related

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property, capital gain, business or profession or income from other sources then it is to be assessed as deemed income u/s 68 or 69 family. In the present case, the addition made by the AO is u/s 69C of the Act. The section 69C is reproduced as under- Unexplained expenditure, etc. 69C. Where in any financial year an assessee

SH. BHUPENDRA MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- 2 Sh. Bhupendra Meena vs. ITO “1. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing in as much as it issued 4 notices

AJEET KUMAR RAMPURIA,TONK vs. ITO WARD 7(2), TONK

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the assessment unit [ for short AO]. 2 Ajeet Kumar Rampuria vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order and deciding the appeal against the assessee without

GAJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAV THROUGH L/H VIPIN DEVI SRIVASTAV,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the Act on 26-03-2022 in the name of the deceased assessee i.e. Shri Gajendra Nath Srivastav. Thus the ld. AR of the assesee submitted that the said assessment order passed by the AO is void ab initio and he relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Avinash V Vyas, legal

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

144B, 147, 282, Rule 127, Art. 226] 1.6 In the instant case also, the Notice for Enablement of Communication window. (notice intimating start of appellate proceedings by NFAC) was issued on 01 11 02022. On the said date, the Primary email id registered in the PAN database was nekiwala71@gmail.com, but the NFAC sent the hearing notices on secondary email

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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)

144B of the Act. The appellant has not produced any material to controvert the finding of AO with any document, evidence which he could rely upon. It has been recorded by the AO that the appellant did not file any return in response to notice u/s 148.On the facts and circumstances, the appellant has not made out a case

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 completed on 22.04.2021, wherein the addition of Rs.11,65,11,479/- made on account of unexplained investment of stock as per provisions contained in section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE. 6 Milestone Dewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved from the said action of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before

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

144B of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short \"Act\"] passed by the DCIT, Circle – 2,\nKota for one year and for two year by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax\nDepartment [ for short AO].\n2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos.1007 to\n1009/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2017-18, 2020-21 & 2022-23 are inter related,\nidentical

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

144B of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short \"Act\"] passed by the DCIT, Circle – 2,\nKota for one year and for two year by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax\nDepartment [ for short AO].\n2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos.1007 to\n1009/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2017-18, 2020-21 & 2022-23 are inter related,\nidentical

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

144B of the IT Act dated 29.09.2021 is suffering from specific defects, hence, order so passed by the AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order of the assessing officer istherefore, liable to revision under clause (a) &(b) of the Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8 SHRI ALOK

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house hold expenses, it is noticed that there are 05\nmembers. The assessee has shown only income of Rs.1,75,710/- and\nagriculture income of Rs.34,750/-, thus total income comes to\nRs.2,10,460/-. Looking to the members of family, such declared income is\nvery nominal and only for running day to day expenses. Based on that\ndiscussion

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

144B of the\nIncome Tax Act, [ for short \"Act\"] by National Faceless Assessment Unit [ for\nshort AO ].\n2.\nAt the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 02 days in\nfiling of the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee\nfiled an application for condonation of delay with following prayers