SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

delay of 18 days\nin filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and\nOthers, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause.\n3.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

delay\nof 2 days in filling this cross objection is condoned.\n\n4\nITA No. 360/JPR/2025 & CO No. 19/JPR/2025\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Co., Jaipur.\n\n5. The brief fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee, M/s\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Company, is a firm assessed as such,\nand filed its return of income

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 148A. 20. In the given situation, when AR for the applicant has candidly pleaded that he was under the bonafide impression that for raising such a legal ground no cross-objection was required to be filed, and that he could straightway argue the same in the appeal filed by the department, we deem it a fit case to condone

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

condone the delay.\n7. The fact as culled out from the records is that information\nwas received from DDIT(Inv.)-III, Jaipur vide letter No. 3303 dated\n22.03.2019 that cash deposits of Rs. 3,80,000/- in State Bank of\nIndia had been taken place in his account.\nThe assessee had filed his ITR declaring total income

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

delay of two days in filing\nthe appeal by the assessee is condoned.\n5.\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:\n“1. 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts of the case in confirming the validity of\nthe impugned notice u/s 148A of the Act as also the notice issued

PHOOL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-W-(106)(2), JAIPUR

delay was condoned, and the matter was set aside to the AO for quantum proceedings. Regarding the penalty, the tribunal found that non-compliance was unintentional and beyond the appellant's control due to improper service of notices, and directed the AO to delete the penalty.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 147", "Section 144", "Section 69", "Section 271(1)(b)", "Section

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

delay of\n18 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned, having\nregard to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCollector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471\n(SC).\n5.\nAppeal has also been argued on merits. Assessee-appellant\nhas raised following grounds: -\n\"1.\nThat order of Learned

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone\nthe delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before us but with a cost of Rs.\n5,000/- to be deposited into the Prime Minister Relief Fund to be\ndeposited by the assessee when the assessee apply for the appeal effect of\nthis order.\n\n4.\nBrief facts of the Case are that the assessee had filed

PHOOL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-W-(106)(2), JAIPUR

delay was condoned, and the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal found that the non-compliance was unintentional and beyond the assessee's control due to improper service of notices.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "144", "69", "271(1)(b)", "148A

KALU JAT,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condoned the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and present submissions before the AO and CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["147", "144", "144B", "69", "115BBE

ABDUL RASHID KHAN,DHOLPUR vs. ITO-1, BHARATPUR

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

condonation of delay is allowed. Appeal is admitted. On merits Assessee-Appellant –a non compliant in assessment and appellate proceedings 7. As per assessment order dated 10.03.2023 the assessee was non responsive to the notices by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act, issued

AJEET KUMAR RAMPURIA,TONK vs. ITO WARD 7(2), TONK

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal by the assessee, considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 5 Ajeet Kumar Rampuria vs. ITO Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 7. Now, coming to the merits of the case

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

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

condone the delay of 6 days\nin filing the appeal before us.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. During the\nyear under consideration the assessee filed return of income on 30.07.2016 by\ndeclaring total Income for the year consideration of Rs.24,04,760/-. The assessee's\ncase was reopened u/s 147/148

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.\r\nA claim for deduction under section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a\r\nreturn filed beyond the time permitted under the Act, ignores the perspective that\r\nsees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in a valid return pre-\r\ncondition

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,DAUSA RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD, DAUSA, ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

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

condonation of delay has already been allowed and discussed at para 2.1 of the present appellate order Accordingly, ground no 5 is allowed. Grounds no.2,4 and 6 are interrelated and raised directly or indirectly against the addition of Rs. 70,39,970/-made under section 68 of the Act. In this case, the appellant had not filed a return

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

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

condonation of delay has already been allowed and discussed at para 2.1 of the present appellate order Accordingly, ground no 5 is allowed. Grounds no.2,4 and 6 are interrelated and raised directly or indirectly against the addition of Rs. 70,39,970/-made under section 68 of the Act. In this case, the appellant had not filed a return

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal before us. 3. Ground no. 1 raised in the grounds of appeal herein above is an additional ground which, due to inadvertence, could not be taken up before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The assessee has, thus, prayed that this additional ground being purely legal in nature and does not require

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 5 of Limitation act. Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. 8. That due to all this reason the appeal could not be filed within time. 9. That the contents or averment of application for condonation of delay are true and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit. Place : Date : .05.2025. Deponent VERIFICATION I, Koshal Kishor Sharma S/o Bhanwar