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 :

120(2) and which is to be challenged. Thus, the complete absence of jurisdiction is not protected by Section 124(3) of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section 124(3) of the Act is also inapplicable in the instance case, thus, the argument made by the Ld. DR is rebutted and against the law. Thus, the case law relied

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 :

120(2) and which is to be challenged. Thus, the complete absence of jurisdiction is not protected by Section 124(3) of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section 124(3) of the Act is also inapplicable in the instance case, thus, the argument made by the Ld. DR is rebutted and against the law. Thus, the case law relied

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

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

120(2) and which is to be challenged. Thus, the complete\nabsence of jurisdiction is not protected by Section 124(3) of the Act. Therefore,\nthe provision of Section 124(3) of the Act is also inapplicable in the instance\ncase, thus, the argument made by the Ld. DR is rebutted and against the law.\nThus, the case law relied

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before us. 4 Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and was residing in Delhi. During the year under consideration the assessee had income from professional receipt from the company named Synergy Property Development Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. The assessee

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

section 253(3) of the Act on the reasons which were beyond my control, in support of the above facts an affidavit duly signed and Notarised is enclosed herewith. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the delay caused on the above reasons may kindly be condoned in submitting the appeal, the appeal may kindly be granted for adjudication

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

section 253(3) of the Act on the reasons which were beyond my control, in support of the above facts an affidavit duly signed and Notarised is enclosed herewith. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the delay caused on the above reasons may kindly be condoned in submitting the appeal, the appeal may kindly be granted for adjudication

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has e-filed his return of income on 09.03.2018 vide ack No. 433729340090318 showing total income of Rs. 6,58,230/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case

M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay, an Affidavit of Shri Phool Chand Chaudhary, Executive Director 3 M/s. Om Shiv Properties Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. of assessee company along with an application dated 28.10.2020 under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed, which reads as under :- Application U/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. 1. That the appellant is submitting appeal against order passed

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

SHAKUNTLA DEVI,TIJARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI

In the result the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

condoned which indicates the sufficient cause for such bona fide delay. 3.1 Further, it is noted that an application by the ld. Counsel for the assessee under Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 has been moved to raise the additional ground and the same is reproduced as under:- ‘’On the facts and in the circumstances

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

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

condone the delay 480 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& Others 167 ITR 471(SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and inclined to decide the appeal on its merits. 3. The assessee has raised following

PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

delay of 462 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS VS PCIT, UDIAPUR Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

condone the\ndelay of 1988 days in filing the appeal before us.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a branch of public sector\nbank. A letter no. ITO(TDS)/AJM/2017-18/1297 dated 27.02.2018 was issued by\nthe Income-tax Department calling for the information under section 201 in respect\nof foreign LTC benefits availed

OM PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGANER JAIPUR vs. WARD 4(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Him. 2

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward 4(3), Jaipur before him. 2 ITA No. 43/JP/2024 Om Prakash Sharma vs. ITO The present is for the following grounds: - "1. The A.O. erred in not following the principles of natural justice and in failing to provide adequate and meaningful opportunity and ignoring the evidence on record, without