DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty passed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 22.05.2018 by Assessing Officer [ here in after the ld. AO ]. There were three 2 Sh. Dayaram Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO default of non-compliance as alleged by the ld. AO is dated 03.10.2017, 27.10.2015 & 10.11.2017. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax act on the pretext of Selling of immovable property with disallowance of cost of improvement adjudicated by Ld Assessing officer and sustained by CIT(A). The aforesaid documents support the 3 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR stand of the Appellant that, the penalty

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, 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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

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)

271(1)(b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein it was show caused why the penalty should not be imposed. It is further submitted that assessee narrated the aforesaid facts in condonation of delay

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 03.11.2020 & 16.12.2020. Details relevant to these appeals is tabulated here in below for the sake convenience so as to decide the issue in appeal: ITA No. Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation