Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 139 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Tata Communications Transformation ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 29 March, 2022

Suresh Kumar Gupta, Raipur, Raipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur, ... on 13 September, 2023

11. Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present appeals, I am of the considered view that as inordinate delay is involved in filing of the same, for which the assessee had failed to come forth with any justifiable reason, therefore, as stated by the Ld. DR and, rightly so, the same does not merit to be condoned. The assessee has not given any genuine reason for the delay in filing of the captioned appeals either in his application seeking condonation of delay and the affidavits filed before me or in the course of hearing of the appeals. All that the assessee had tried to canvass before me 8 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 237 & 238/RPR/2023 was that the delay in filing of the present appeal had occasioned as the requisite certificates in Form No.26A could not be obtained from the respective payees viz. (i) Magma Fincorp Ltd.; and (ii) Religare Finvest Ltd. I find no substance in the claim of the assessee that the delay involved in filing of the present appeals was due to bonafide reasons, and the same does not smack of any lackadaisical conduct on his part. In the totality of the facts leading to the delay in filing of the present appeals r.w the conduct of the assessee appellant before the CIT(Appeals), I would mince no words in observing that the request of the assessee for condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal does not merit acceptance. In fact, if I condone the inordinate delay involved in the present cases where the assessee had adopted a lackadaisical approach and had not even participated in the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), then, it would send a wrong message and would lay down a wrong precedent for the times to come. I am of a strong conviction that as the assessee had on account of his callous conduct delayed the filing of the present appeals by a substantial period of 191 days, therefore, the applications filed by him seeking condonation of the delay therein involved does not merit acceptance and are liable to be rejected at the threshold.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitesh Singhania,Raipur vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Raipur, ... on 22 July, 2025

In the appellant's case, the policy was issued on 31.03.2011, capital sum assured was Rs.20,00,000/- and single premium payable in the first year was Rs.5,00,000/-. Since the one-year premium payable was more than 20% of the capital sum assured, the maturity proceeds receivable on such policy was not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10D) of the Act. Form 26AS issued reflected that 10 Mitesh Singhania Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.410/RPR/2025 TDS was deducted u/s 194DA which is applicable in the case where the maturity proceeds are not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10D). In view of the same, CPC included the amount of Rs.7,41,718/- within taxable income while' processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The appellant claimed that the impugned Intimation u/s 143(1) did not mention exact reason for making the addition. In this regard, it is to be stated that CPC.2 portal reveals that a prior intimation as per 1st proviso below section 143(1)(a) was issued to the appellant by CPC vide communication reference no. CPC/1718/G22/1805349956 dated 12.07.2018 detailing therein the proposed adjustments and the reasons thereof. It is therefore not correct that the reasons for adjustment was not mentioned in the Intimation. The appellant has also quoted the provisions of section 80C(5) of the Act. However, it is stated that such provisions are not applicable in this case. The addition made by the CPC u/s. 143(1) is therefore upheld and appeal dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. S.B. Agencies, ... vs Ito-3(4), Raipur, Raipur on 15 May, 2026

In response to these notices no document/written submission in support of its contention 5 M/s.S.B Agencies Vs. ITO-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.296, 297 & 298/RPR/2026 has been filed by the appellant. Accordingly, a full and final opportunity notice was issued on 16.10.2024. However, the appellant has not complied to the same till date. The appeal is thus being decided on the basis of material available on record."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. S.B. Agencies, ... vs Ito-3(4), Raipur, Raipur on 15 May, 2026

In response to these notices no document/written submission in support of its contention 5 M/s.S.B Agencies Vs. ITO-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.296, 297 & 298/RPR/2026 has been filed by the appellant. Accordingly, a full and final opportunity notice was issued on 16.10.2024. However, the appellant has not complied to the same till date. The appeal is thus being decided on the basis of material available on record."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. S.B. Agencies, ... vs Ito-3(4), Raipur, Raipur on 15 May, 2026

In response to these notices no document/written submission in support of its contention 5 M/s.S.B Agencies Vs. ITO-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos.296, 297 & 298/RPR/2026 has been filed by the appellant. Accordingly, a full and final opportunity notice was issued on 16.10.2024. However, the appellant has not complied to the same till date. The appeal is thus being decided on the basis of material available on record."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Priyesh Singhania, Raipur,Raipur vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Raipur, Raipur on 18 September, 2025

5. Both the parties unanimously conceded that the facts and issues involved in the present appeal are exactly identical with the facts in the case of Mitesh Singhania Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur, ITA No.410/RPR/2025, dated 22.07.2025. The Tribunal in the aforesaid case had dealt with the similar issue in a detailed manner in favour of the assessee observing as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pawan Kumar Jaiprakash Gupta,Ranchi vs Ito Ward 1(1),, Ranchi on 10 June, 2025

5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the passbooks in respect of Bank of India, ICICI Bank and IDBI Bank maintained by the assessee. A perusal of the said bank accounts clearly shows that there are deposited of cash in the bank accounts and immediately thereafter there is cash withdrawals. Normally in such a situation, the best method to assess the income would be to treat the difference between the credits and debits as the income of the assessee. This would in any case in the present situation below the income disclosed by the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the peak credit in the bank accounts of the assessee can be treated as 2 ITA No. 63/Ran/2023 Pawan Kumar Jaiprakash Gupta Vs ITO the income of the assessee. In the result, the Assessing Officer is directed to assessee the peak credit in respect of the three bank accounts as the income of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ranchi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Himanshu Infratech Pvt Ltd vs Income Tax Officer & Ors. on 21 July, 2023

In the cases titled M/s Vinayak Services Pvt. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer Ward-26(3) Delhi, WP(C) 12220/2022 decided on 14.12.2022; Pawan Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), 2023:DHC:1961- DB; and Usha Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), 2023:DHC:1960- DB, under similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court, which included one of us (Rajiv Shakdher, J.), allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notices under Section 148A(b) as well as orders under Section 148A(d) of the Act, impugned therein.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next