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 :

condoning the delay in filing appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal in liminie. c. In not following the directions of Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ 10173/2024. d. In dismissing the appeal at threshold after hearing the appeal on merit as well as on legal points e. in giving factually incorrect or inconsistent finding or observations in the Impugned

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 :

condoning the delay in filing appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal in liminie. c. In not following the directions of Hon’ble High Court in Civil Writ 10173/2024. d. In dismissing the appeal at threshold after hearing the appeal on merit as well as on legal points e. in giving factually incorrect or inconsistent finding or observations in the Impugned

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

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

condoning the delay in filing appeal\nand thereby dismissing the appeal in liminie.\nC. In not following the directions of Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ\n10173/2024.\nd. In dismissing the appeal at threshold after hearing the appeal on\nmerit as well as on legal points\ne. in giving factually incorrect or inconsistent finding or observations in\nthe Impugned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay, they are not entitled to expand or enlarge a period of limitation as statutorily prescribed.” [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5.viii. Accordingly, observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and DCIT v. U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) cannot possibly be read or construed as a carte blanche enabling

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay, they are not entitled to expand or enlarge a period of limitation as statutorily prescribed.” [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5.viii. Accordingly, observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and DCIT v. U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) cannot possibly be read or construed as a carte blanche enabling

SH. SANJIV JHA,DHOLPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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)

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus raising therein following ground of appeal:- SHRI SANJIV JHA VS ITO, WARD -4, BHARATPUR ‘’1. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal ex parte due to non compliance of notices by the consultant without deciding the merit of the addition

VISHWAKARMA SHRAM SEVA NYASH,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, KAILASH HEIGHT

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former consideration

VISHWAKARMA SHRAM SEVA NYASH,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, KAILASH HEIGHTS

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former consideration

ENOCHY CHILDREN RELIEF SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

150/-. (iii) 15% general accumulation u/s 11(2) amounting to Rs. 24,72,465/-. (iv) Accumulation u/s 11(2) amounting to Rs. 1,64,996/-.” The assessee has also filed paper book containing 31 pages comprising followingdocuments :- 1. Written submission before CIT (Appeals) 2. Copy of Appellant’s Financials audited on 30.09.2017. 3. Copy of Audit report in Form

ENOCHY CHILDREN RELIEF SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

150/-. (iii) 15% general accumulation u/s 11(2) amounting to Rs. 24,72,465/-. (iv) Accumulation u/s 11(2) amounting to Rs. 1,64,996/-.” The assessee has also filed paper book containing 31 pages comprising followingdocuments :- 1. Written submission before CIT (Appeals) 2. Copy of Appellant’s Financials audited on 30.09.2017. 3. Copy of Audit report in Form

SARITA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-1(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

150, Haldiya House, Haldiyon Ka Ward 1(1), Jaipur Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur NCRB Building Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABLPJ 6451 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Ashok Kanodia (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. James Kurian (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

150/-. Assessment order u/s 143(3) of 1.T. Act, 1961 was passed on 19.01.2016 at assessed income of Rs. 2,54,75,220/-. There is difference between ITR filed under section 153A and 139 of the 1.T. Act, 1961. The assessment order under section 153A is hereby passed after considering assessed income under section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

150/-. Assessment order u/s 143(3) of 1.T. Act, 1961 was passed on 19.01.2016 at assessed income of Rs. 2,54,75,220/-. There is difference between ITR filed under section 153A and 139 of the 1.T. Act, 1961. The assessment order under section 153A is hereby passed after considering assessed income under section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

150/-. Assessment order u/s 143(3) of 1.T. Act, 1961 was passed on 19.01.2016 at assessed income of Rs. 2,54,75,220/-. There is difference between ITR filed under section 153A and 139 of the 1.T. Act, 1961. The assessment order under section 153A is hereby passed after considering assessed income under section

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

delay of 232 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) 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

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

delay of 232 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) 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

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

delay of 232 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) 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

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

delay of 232 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) 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