RAMARPAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, AJMER

In the result, appeal ITA No

condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The reason for the delay is that the appellant has filed rectification request under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, therefore the delay is caused in filing of appeal. 2. That your goodself is empowered u/s

BHAWANI CHEM,JAIPUR vs. ASSESING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

154 on the sole reason that appeal has not been filed against the order u/s 143(1).’’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing of the case, the Bench noted that there is delay of 15 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an affidavit dated 15th Nov. 2022 praying therein as under

VIVEK SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1134 & 1135/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Vivek Shiksha Samiti Jobner Road, Kalwar, VIA Jhotwara, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Exemption-1, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTV0361Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gatum Singh Choudhary

u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act r.w.s 5 of the Limitation Act. Since, the delay in filing of appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same is not admitted. 4.6 In view of the above, the appeal is not admitted for adjudication on account of delay in filing

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

condone the delay of 19 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. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derived income

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT LTD.,MANSAROVAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income For The Assessment Year.

u/s 154 to the jurisdictional AO on 09.12.2022 but no rectification order was passed by him. On feeling unsuccessful on the issue of getting rectification the assessee ultimately decided to challenge that intimation dated 18.01.2019 by filing an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 06.02.2023. From the issue of intimation to the ultimate of filling an appeal there

MEHAR CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

rectification application before CPC u/s 154 on 08-05-2019, it obviously means the date of order u/s 143(1) is before 08-05-2019. In that case, this appeal which was filed on 22-06-2019 becomes belated appeal. However, in Form 35, appellant has mentioned that appeal filed in time which is factually incorrect. Thus there are factual

MAYUR GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

delay of 443 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned 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 is prevented by sufficient cause. 4. The fact as culled out from the record is that the assessee

BANSAL PROPBUILD PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT- A, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

rectification application U/s 154 before A.O. due to that main director shree Suresh Agarwal who is looking after all business activity of the company was continuously suffering from illness i.e. from Cardiac surgery in the year 2010-11 and after that another illness copy of some admission and discharge and other treatment prescription are also enclosed for your ready reference

TAGORE SHIKSHA SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condones the delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. 7.0 In the result, the appeal against rectification order u/s 154

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act”] by AO, CPC. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 81 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Sub: M/s Dynamic Powertech Private Limited

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY,ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

rectification request made by the appellant was correctly denied by the CPC. For the same reason, the appeal filed against the passing of order u/s 154 is non maintainable. 5.2 It is noted that in this case, Form 10B was filed belatedly by more than one year. It is submitted that the procedural delay in uploading Form

MOHD SAEED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: the Id. CIT(A). The narration so made by the Id. CIT(A) as to dismissal of appeal is reproduced as under:-

condonation of delay in late filing the appeal by the assessee before him and he did not deal with the issue of addition. 6 ITANO. 917/JPR/2024 SHRI MOHD. SAEED VS ITO, WARED 5(4), JAIPUR 3.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that CPC, Bangalore has not made rectification in its order

JEENKRIPA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED,VAISHALI NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

condonation of delay by Ld. CIT(A) being unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice deserves to be rolled back. 3. On facts and in the circumstance Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the summary addition of Rs. 1,98,67,320/- without considering the obvious facts emerging from the bank statements available on records

M/S S. BHANDARI & CO., C.A.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

rectification order u/s 154 that the claim of the assessee has been found correct, however, while processing of refund claim, credit of Rs. 1,23,596/- was again not given to the assessee. As soon as the assessee received the refund cheque on 03.07.2018 wherein there was short credit of TDS of Rs. 1,23,596/-, the assessee moved

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

condonation of delay wherein the Bench does not find any sufficient and reasonable cause for late filing the appeal by the assessee. Hence, the same is dismissed. 3.1 Now the Bench feels that the case of the assessee should also be adjudicated upon on merit wherein the crux of the issue in the appeal relates to late deposit of employees

SINGODWALA WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

u/s 154 of the Act, however later we were suggested by the tax advisor to file an appeal rather than contesting the matter under rectification. 4. Unfortunately, at the time of filing appeal before CIT(A) in form 35 we therefore could not mention that there was delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). 5. Due to such genuine

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

delay of 58 days filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,68,02,540/-. The assessee company claimed deduction

M/S. GOLDEN TRIANGLE FORT & PALACE PVT. LTD., ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay deserved to be condoned. ITA 943/JP/2018_ 2 M/s Golden Triangle Fort & Palace P Ltd. Vs dCIT 2. That, the ld.CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating that the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 15,34,000/- so made by the Id.AO was not mistake apparent on record, and was not rectifiable under section u/s 154