SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay. 5. As regards the matter in appeal, we note that the same is against order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. At the outset, in this case, Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the notice to the assessee u/s. 263 of the Act in these case, was issued by letter dated

RAM DEV DAIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-1, JHUNJHUNU

Bench: The Tribunal. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Referred To The Contents Of The Application While Orally Making Out A Case Of There Being

ii). The demand raised without following the Natural Justice and the addition is without issue of Show Cause Notice. (iii). A large numbers of taxpayers got relief in identical issue. So, the substantive justice is in favour of me. (iv). If my appeal left unheard, it is case of taxes without authority of Law, which is against Article

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

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

25 March 2017 whereas the due date of filing income tax return for year under consideration was 30 September 2016. Thus, the appellant is not covered in the immunity granted by the CBDT circular. On perusal of form 10B it is also observed that the Balance sheet and Income & Expense account annexure to Form 10B is not also not signed

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

10 SCC 448 – A party misleading the court cannot claim equitable relief (Paper Book Page No. 45 to 50). 5. Application to Present Case • The assessee has not discharged the burden of showing any “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of delay

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

10 SCC 448 – A party misleading the court cannot claim equitable relief (Paper Book Page No. 45 to 50). 5. Application to Present Case • The assessee has not discharged the burden of showing any “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of delay

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

10 SCC 448 – A party misleading the court cannot claim equitable relief (Paper Book Page No. 45 to 50). 5. Application to Present Case • The assessee has not discharged the burden of showing any “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of delay

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

10 SCC 448 – A party misleading the court cannot claim equitable relief (Paper Book Page No. 45 to 50). 5. Application to Present Case • The assessee has not discharged the burden of showing any “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of delay

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

ii) the receipt from such business or commercial activity or service in relation thereto, does not exceed the quantified limit, as amended over the years (Rs. 10 lakhs w.e.f. 1-4-2009; then Rs. 25 lakhs w.e.f. 1-4-2012; and now 20% of total receipts of the previous year, w.e.f. 1-4-2016); A.3. Generally, the charging

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

ii) the receipt from such business or commercial activity or service in relation thereto, does not exceed the quantified limit, as amended over the years (Rs. 10 lakhs w.e.f. 1-4-2009; then Rs. 25 lakhs w.e.f. 1-4-2012; and now 20% of total receipts of the previous year, w.e.f. 1-4-2016); A.3. Generally, the charging

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

25 Aravali Buildhome LLP completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier". Section 139(5) provides that "if any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4), discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

ii) Further, the delay in filing appeal has been attributed to late service of assessment order. However, the appellant did not provide any supporting document to prove his claim. 4.4 As per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec.249 of the Act, the appeal should be filed/presented within 30 days of the date of service of the demand notice

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

25,04,715 for short deduction of TDS and Rs. 1,44,76,345 towards interest on short deduction of TDS (b) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO has erred in holding the assessee to be to be deemed in default for alleged non obtaining of the PAN numbers of respective employees

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

25,04,715 for short deduction of TDS and Rs. 1,44,76,345 towards interest on short deduction of TDS (b) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO has erred in holding the assessee to be to be deemed in default for alleged non obtaining of the PAN numbers of respective employees

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 Appeal could not be filed in time before the ITAT because the order of CIT(A) was misplaced. The firm stood dissolved and was recurring into losses. Delay to be condoned. (iii) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 that "condonation of delay

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

10-\n09-1987] it was held by Hon'ble Patna High Court as under.-\nX\nX\nX\nX\nC.2 Issue 1: date of service of the assessment order under challenge in the\nappeal:-\nHowever in the order in the writ petition there is mention regarding the dispute\nregarding the date of receipt of assessment order and nowhere there is\nacknowledgement

GO GRAM ECO FOUNDATION,GOVINDGARH TEHSIL CHOMU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that ld. CIT(Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval 5 Go Gram Eco Foundation vs. CIT(E) under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

ii) Ratanlal Dangi v/s ITO (1995) 51 TTJ 611 (JP) and CIT v/s Motilal (iii) Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) (iv) Vedbai v/s Shantaram Baburam Patil & Others (2002) 253 ITR 798 (SC) (v) Collector, Land & Acquisition v/s Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is now adjudicated on merit. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that a survey action 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 28-08-2018 at business premises of the assessee firm. The assessee filed its original return of income