DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts in estimating income on cash deposits (sales) by applying net profit rate of 2% which is unreasonable & inconsiderate of nature of business. 8 That the appellant reserves his right

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts in estimating income on cash deposits (sales) by applying net profit rate of 2% which is unreasonable & inconsiderate of nature of business. 8 That the appellant reserves his right

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts in estimating income on cash deposits (sales) by applying net profit rate of 2% which is unreasonable & inconsiderate of nature of business. 8 That the appellant reserves his right

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts in estimating income on cash deposits (sales) by applying net profit rate of 2% which is unreasonable & inconsiderate of nature of business. 8 That the appellant reserves his right

KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: Him. 2

condone the delay 285 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and other decision cited by the assessee. 3. In this appeal, the assessee

JAGDISH PRASHAD PANCHAL,JHALAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHALAWAR

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

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

delay in filing the appeal in compliance of the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of Rs. 45,20,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of old currency having been deposited by the Appellant which includes

DEV GROUP,ALWAR vs. ITO,WARD BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: Him.

condone the delay 326 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and other decision cited by the assessee. 3. In this appeal, the assessee

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts in estimating income on cash deposits (sales) by applying net profit rate of 2% which is unreasonable & inconsiderate of nature of business. 8 That the appellant reserves his right

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

demonetization and on another side estimated Income on those cash deposit, thereby violated cardinal principle of taxation. 7 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts in estimating income on cash deposits (sales) by applying net profit rate of 2% which is unreasonable & inconsiderate of nature of business. 8 That the appellant reserves his right