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

MAHESH MORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

sections": [ "144", "68", "44AD", "69A", "10(2)", "24(b)", "80C", "142(1)", "143(2)", "127" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description of the document & Page No. 1. 3/1 Sale agreement-cum-receipt of truck, showing purchase of truck for Rs.8

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description of the document & Page No. 1. 3/1 Sale agreement-cum-receipt of truck, showing purchase of truck for Rs.8

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been inventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A- Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. 28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated below – S.No. Exhibit No. Description of the document & Page No. 1. 3/1 Sale agreement-cum-receipt of truck, showing purchase of truck for Rs.8

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been\ninventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A-\n28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated\nbelow -\nS.No.\nExhibit No.\n& Page No.\nDescription of the document\n1.\n3/1\nSale agreement-cum-receipt of truck, showing purchase of\ntruck for Rs.8

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,700/- The papers, alleged as incriminating, had been\ninventorized as Exhibit 3 of Annexure AS (Page No.1 & Page Nos.22A-\n28) The description of these documents of this Annexure is as tabulated\nbelow -\nS.No.\nExhibit No.\n& Page No.\nDescription of the document\n1.\n3/1\nSale agreement-cum-receipt of truck, showing purchase of\ntruck for Rs.8

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 133(6) of the Act to make\ninquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original\nreturn, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of\nmaximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no\naction could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss

NEHA WADHWA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

section 80C of the Act), the Assessing Officer categorically stated the assessee could submit documentary evidence of payment of premium with LIC for Rs.40,704/- only against the claim of deduction of Rs.82,542/-. I find no reason to interfere with the denial of deduction for Rs.41,838/-, as mentioned in the assessment order. 5. The appeal is disposed

BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

68. In this regard it is submitted : “Addition u/s 69 of the IT Act 1961 Rs. 62,89,400/- Contra 3608520 Receipt 2638500 Opening Balance 360000 Rs. 36,08,500/- was withdrawn and again deposited, which is apparent from the banks statement the same was filed with the Assessing Authority. There was opening balance Rs. 360000/- as cash in hand

ITO, JAIPUR vs. BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

68. In this regard it is submitted : “Addition u/s 69 of the IT Act 1961 Rs. 62,89,400/- Contra 3608520 Receipt 2638500 Opening Balance 360000 Rs. 36,08,500/- was withdrawn and again deposited, which is apparent from the banks statement the same was filed with the Assessing Authority. There was opening balance Rs. 360000/- as cash in hand

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

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

Section 68 of the\nI.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.\"\nWe further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment\nyear 2012-13 wherein the Id.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:-\n\"13.2\nI have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per\nassessment order

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)

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ We further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the ld.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:- ‘’13.2 I have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per assessment order assessee

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)

section 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ We further take reference of the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the ld.CIT(A) at para 13.2 has observed as under:- ‘’13.2 I have perused the facts of the case and assessment order. As per assessment order assessee