SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove

271F of the Act)\n| बनाम\n| The ACIT\n| Shri Shailendra Garg\n| Vs.\n| Circle-6\n| Chak 5 M, Kesrisinghpur,\n| Ganganagar - 335 027\n| Jaipur\n| स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG 4440 E\n| प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\n| अपीलार्थी / Appellant\n\n2\nITA NO. 7/JP/2024 AND ANOTHER\nSHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\nआयकरअपीलसं

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

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)

271F 2024, Ex-parte order on the ground of delay holding that the appellant of 382 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 1557/JP/2024 2015-16 NFAC Delhi, dated 28-05- Dismissed the appeal 152 days Appeal

TEJ SINGH SINSINWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271F for not filing\nof 1 T Return, which was served on the assessee by registered post.\nIt is explicitly stated in the remand report that as per the information available on\nITS received by bank, the assessee had deposited Rs.5,17,980/- on 26.08.2010.\nRelevant para reads as under:\nc.\nd.\nHowever, the finding of the assessing officer noted

RAVINDRA GAUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

68 read with the section 11588E as discussed above in the order for the year under consideration the assessee is liable to pay penalty u's 271 (1)(c) on the aggregate amount of Rs. 86,00,000/- for which separate proceedings are being initiated. Being not filing

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

section 148A(b), impugned order and\nconsequential notice were to be set aside.\nFrom the above discussion it is clear that the alleged property in question for the\nreassessment was sold by the appellant and not purchased by the appellant.\nTherefore, the ground raised by the appellant is hereby allowed.\n6. In the result, the appeal is Allowed

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271F and so on of the 1.T. Act are independent of the quantum appeal and therefore provision of section 275(1)(c) of the Act is applicable and not the provision of section 275(1)(a), if at all the penalty is initiated in the assessment order. The appellant has rightly pointed out that limitation of penalty

SMT. PUSHPA JOSHI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,610/- made by ld.AO deserves to be deleted. 3.1 That, Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Id.AO in not providing the deduction on account of cost of construction carried out during the period Oct.1985 to Oct.1986 and during the period Oct.1993 to Nov.1996 in phased manner, and which was duly shown in two valuation reports furnished