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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 lakhs. 4. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s 271B of the Act to the assessee for the default of not getting its accounts audited and has violated of the provisions of section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 lakhs. 4. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s 271B of the Act to the assessee for the default of not getting its accounts audited and has violated of the provisions of section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 lakhs. 4. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s 271B of the Act to the assessee for the default of not getting its accounts audited and has violated of the provisions of section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 lakhs. 4. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s 271B of the Act to the assessee for the default of not getting its accounts audited and has violated of the provisions of section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 lakhs. 4. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s 271B of the Act to the assessee for the default of not getting its accounts audited and has violated of the provisions of section

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

sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "271F", "271(1)(b)", "271B", "68", "80C" ], "issues": "The primary issues were the condonation of delay

SHRI SOHAN NATH,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

271B of the Act of Rs. 68,944/-. The penalty so imposed by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be deleted in full. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any other grounds of the appeal on or before

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

68 of the Act of Rs. 10,53,700/- lacs were made on account of the fact that the amount of Rs. 10,53,700/- lacs were deposited in the bank account and the assessee had filed to explain the source of cash deposits. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before

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)

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. 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)

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,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. 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)

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. 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)

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. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

271B 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\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Prasant Daga, CA\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue

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)

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. 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)

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. 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)

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. 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)

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