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

delay in filing of the present appeal of 476 days is therefore condoned. 21. Taking up now the appeal of the assessee, the grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- “Leave Encashment Fully Exempted 1. Any payment received by an employee of the Central Govt. OR a State Govt. as the cash equivalent of the leave salary in respect

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 147/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 14.12.2016. 2 Vishnu Pareek vs. CIT(A) 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. CIT(A) seriously erred in facts and law in dismissing the appeal on account of delay of 162 days in filing of appeal before him against

RAGHAV DANGAYACH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1) JPR, JAIPUR

15. As a result, the application seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the inordinate delay in filing the proposed appeal. 34. The Special Leave Petition, as such, lacks merit and is dismissed.” 14. Here, the record would reveal that during pendency of the appeal before Learned CIT(A), the applicant remained non compliant despite issuance of four notices issued under section 250 of the Act, during the period from

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

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

condone the delay belated for the Assessment Year 2016-17, 2017-18, if the audit report is obtained before the due date of filing the return of income but has not been uploaded. In this case as it is evident that the assessee was obtained that report on 26.07.2016 and was uploaded thereafter, on 25.03.2017, therefore, the circular as referred

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

10. Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 wherein, considering the Covid and lockdown, the period of limitation shall be excluded in all case from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and thereafter, vide Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021, the Hon’ble Apex Court has extended the time limit from 14.03.2021 to 02.10.2021. As per section

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

10. Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 wherein, considering the Covid and lockdown, the period of limitation shall be excluded in all case from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and thereafter, vide Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021, the Hon’ble Apex Court has extended the time limit from 14.03.2021 to 02.10.2021. As per section

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

10. Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 wherein, considering the Covid and lockdown, the period of limitation shall be excluded in all case from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and thereafter, vide Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021, the Hon’ble Apex Court has extended the time limit from 14.03.2021 to 02.10.2021. As per section

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

10. Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 wherein, considering the Covid and lockdown, the period of limitation shall be excluded in all case from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and thereafter, vide Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021, the Hon’ble Apex Court has extended the time limit from 14.03.2021 to 02.10.2021. As per section

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)

condoning the delay. The individual grounds of appeal are discussed here under- Grounds of Appeal 1. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliance of opportunity granted by him whereas the appeal required

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)

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

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:

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

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)

10. That, the delay was not deliberate, but occurred due to circumstances which were beyond the control of the appellant. There was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides on part of the appellant. Therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned. 11. That, further it is submitted that, as per section

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)

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits." 7. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct

PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (here in after “Act”) by the AO. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Prakash Sharma vs. ITO “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing condonation of delay in the light of Supreme Court judgment

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

10,80,000/- actually incurred and declared by the appellant. (c) charging tax on capital gain assessed by him on sale of said plot at rate applicable to normal income as against applicable rate of 20% on long term capital gain. 4. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) & (2) above, the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

10,80,000/- actually incurred and declared by the appellant. (c) charging tax on capital gain assessed by him on sale of said plot at rate applicable to normal income as against applicable rate of 20% on long term capital gain. 4. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) & (2) above, the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust

LATE. SHRI SATPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

34,545/- claimed under section 10(38) of the Act and the addition made thereof under section 68 of the Act of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Udaipur, Rajasthan was in complete disregard of the binding judgments of different High Courts and Hon’ble Appellate