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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SHRI GANPATI DEVELOPERS, KOTA

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1348/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Shri Ganpati Developers, Vs. Circle-1, C-150, Road No. 5, I.P.I.A., Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 8967 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

135 (Guj) (viii) CIT Vs Khazan Singh & Brothers (2007) 304 ITR 243 (P&H) (ix) Daulat Ram Imani Vs DCIT Central (2008) 24 SOT 541 (Mumbai) (x) CIT Vs Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del)(2010) (xi) CIT Vs M. Aja Babu Hyderabad ITA No.1755, 1756 & 1757/Hyd/2012 (Hyd) (xii) CIT Vs PV Kalyan Sundaram (2006) 203 CTR (Mad) (xiii) ACIT

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

135/ 290 CTR 283 (Allahabad) (PB 23 to 29)(DC\n),\nthe original assessment was passed at total income of Rs.\n5,83,91,17,790/- on dated 21.10.2011 wherein an addition on account of\nsales tax subsidy of Rs.61,00,79,579/- was made. Thereafter, the case\nwas reopened and reassessment was completed vide order dated\n26.03.2015 by making

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

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

135 Parfume Factory, Jaipur Heerawala RIICO, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCP 4088 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 21/08/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

RAJESH MOTORS (AUTO) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1) , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

delay of 135 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. Rajesh Motors (Auto) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 6 As a lead case, for deciding the appeals, we take ITA No. 79/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee. “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

delay of 135 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. Rajesh Motors (Auto) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 6 As a lead case, for deciding the appeals, we take ITA No. 79/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee. “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

delay of 135 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. Rajesh Motors (Auto) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 6 As a lead case, for deciding the appeals, we take ITA No. 79/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2018-19 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee. “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case

RMC GEMS INDIA LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 3.1 Apropos Ground Nos. 1 and 2, brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of export of Gems Stone, Jewellery from its unit from SEZ. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.2

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

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)

135 Taxman 327/266 ITR 1/[2004] 9 SCC 686. Assessee's submissions inter-alia were that :- 'The expression to furnish in due time figuring in section 276-CC means to furnish within the time permissible under the Act ; The return furnished under section 139(4) at any time before the assessment is made, has to be regarded as a return

SUN STONE INGINEERING INDURIES P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCTI-2, JAIPUR

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

delay in filing the appeal of 28 days is hereby condoned. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee has stated at bar that the additional ground being a legal ground based on the facts available on record. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

condone the delay of 292 days in filing of appeal. 5. It is observed that during the year under consideration the assessee sold property situated at Village Deoli Arab Road, Tehsil Ladpura, and Kota for Rs. 3.08 Cr. Which was jointly owned by the assessee himself and some Mr. Naveen Kumar in 50:50, meaning thereby the share

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay as observed by the registry. 5. Now coming to the merits of the appeal. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A of the IT. Act, 1961 at the business premises of the assessee company was carried out on 02.08.2017 which was subsequently converted into search and seizure action operation as per provision

CLASSIC AIRCON,INDIA vs. DCIT CPC, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: Cit(A)-Iii, Jaipur Was Rejected /Dismissed Vide Order Dated 20.09.2021 & Same Was Served Upon The Appellant On 20.09.2021 Itself Through E-Mail. Classic Aircon Vs. Dcit, Cpc

condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That both the lower authorities have erred in law well as in facts of the case in considering delayed payment of Employee’s share of EPF/ESI subject to 36(1)(va) and thereby made/upheld addition to the tune of Rs. 2,06,688/-. Classic Aircon vs. DCIT, CPC 2. That

NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of CPC in making disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC, paid before the due date of filing of return of income but, after the specified due date of respective Acts