ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

253(4) of the Act endorses the situation of finality with regard to the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. In view of the above reasons, the Appellate Tribunal under resort to rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, would be justified to consider the contention raised by the assessee in regard to which the first appellate

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

253(5), if there is sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, Hon'ble ITAT may condone such delay. In the above legal and factual background it is submitted that preparation for national level events and attending such national level events of Digambar Jains was sufficient cause for not filing appeal within the stipulated time by Digambar Jain Mandir

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

253 ITR 633 (Rajasthan), wherein the assessee had raised a claim for weighted deduction under section 35B during the assessment proceedings before the AO. The Hon’ble Court upheld the decision of Tribunal and held that the Appellate Authority has the power to consider a larger amount if the materials supporting that claim are already available on record

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house property and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry more particularly when the detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and in this regard the assessee had also furnished all the details alongwith decision of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT (supra). Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was lack

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3,53,826/- Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2016-17 59-60 1,84,14,307/- It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) after thorough analysis of such working has granted relief on this issue, appellant prays such action of ld.CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. Issue: Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

253 of the Act contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression “sufficient cause” employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Assessee was having 60 days time to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It is hereby submitted that the Assessee filed an appeal through the online portal of the ITAT on 31.05.2022, which is within the said timeline. Therefore

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

house." 8. After responding to all the queries of ld. AO and after satisfying him in respect of all the issues raised following alternative submission was made vide response letter dated 26.12.2019: - “Further, as per explanation of section 56(2)(viib), the fair market value of the share shall be the value (1) as per rule 11UA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property during the F.Y 2011-12 to 2013-14. The re-assessment order was passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by making addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs 90,00,385 on account of share application/premium received from M/s Agarani Credit and Finvest Pvt. Ltd.,M/s Darshan Enclave Pvt. Ltd., M/s Harsharatna Investment

RESERVE BANK COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

house property chargeable under section 22. 17 Reserve Bank Coop. Society Ltd.v. ITO Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co-operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

253 CTR 306\n(Gujarat)(01-03-2011) held that If upon further inquiry by the Assessing Officer,\nsuch details could be gathered and the nature of payment received by the\nassessee from SBL could be ascertained, to find out whether the same should be\ntreated as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22)(e) or not, the same, would