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

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

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

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

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay and the same is condoned.\n8. The brief facts as culled out from the records are that asessee is a company and derives income from retail and wholesale sale of woods, timber, laminates and adhesives and allied activities. A search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried

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

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay of 41 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs.\nMst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause in bringing the present appeal with\ndelay and the same is condoned

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

UDAI LAL MAHABIR PRASAD,INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDIA

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay of 1401 days, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the appellant had not presented any evidence to substantiate non receipt of said intimation. He further observed that as per standard procedure followed by CPC, all intimations u/s 143(1) of the Act are sent electronically to the tax payers on the given registered email ID and also made

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the said delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 4. In ITA No. 41/JP/2021 for A.Y 2018-19, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as he failed to appreciate that disallowance under section

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the said delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 4. In ITA No. 41/JP/2021 for A.Y 2018-19, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as he failed to appreciate that disallowance under section

ENOCHY CHILDREN RELIEF SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

rectification passed u/s 154 of the Act, we find that AO has observed that on verification, it is found that the assessee has not filed audit report in form 10BB at all. On going through the paper book placed before us, we find that the assessee has attached the copy of form 10BB dated 11.9.2019 uploaded on 31 10.2019 vide