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)

section 151 by the specified authority approving the recording of reasons. However the learned AO till date failed to furnish the required information. Copy of letter dated 14.10.2021 is available on paper book page NO…24. The learned AO did not furnish information taking the excuse that the relevant records are not available/traceable. . Aggrieved with the order of the learned

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

condoned the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others for a liberal approach. The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 148 was bad in law due to a lack of proper approval from the competent authority as required by section 151

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)

condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 2. Sant Kabir Mahasabha Versus The CIT (Exemption) Chandigarh (ITA No. 84/CHD/2023) (ITAT, Chandigarh) Merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order

SANJIVANI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court 5 Sanjivani Shikshan Sansthan, Jaipur. in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 3. The brief facts of the case

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 151 Act and therefore, the reassessment proceeding initiated along with assessment order passed are liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is bad-in-law, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation

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

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decisionof 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. 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal of the assessee, the facts as emerges from

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)

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been

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)

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 4. Both these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue for the same assessment year. The Grounds of appeal raised by each party are as under:- ITA No. 910/JP/2019 (Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 4. Both these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue for the same assessment year. The Grounds of appeal raised by each party are as under:- ITA No. 910/JP/2019 (Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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. 5. The assessee company has submitted an application praying for raising the following additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “That

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

section 151(ii) of the Act the sanction from the PCCIT\nought to have been taken when order was sought to be passed beyond the period of three years\ni.e. beyond 31st March 2022 on 5th April 2022. Consequently, the notice dated 20th March 2022\nand order dated 5th April 2022 deserves to be set aside on account of jurisdictional

TASLEEM BANO,JAIPUR vs. WARD-5(4) INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay so made 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 and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that

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

SMT. SHAFIKA BEGUM ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-5, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 929/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shafika Begum, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 320/4, H.A.R. Colony, Char Ward 5(5), Darwaja, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ajkpb 6970 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : None (A.O. Report). Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 28/03/2018 For The A.Y. 2009-10, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken:

151 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA 929/JP/2018_ Shafika Begum Vs ITO 1961. The action of ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings, being illegal and without any basis. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay\nof 100 days in filing the appeal before us.\n5.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and\nderives income from interest. The assessee has not filed his return of\nincome for the year under consideration because the income stated to be\nbelow the taxable limit. Subsequently

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