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)

2) vide letter dated 13 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 14.10.2021 to furnish copy of sanction letter under 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

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

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

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

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

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)

section 2(14) of the income tax act and the same is in the nature of rural agricultural land. Therefore the sold land was not an capital 2 SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI VS ITO, BHIWADI assets and hence there was no question arises on treating the sales consideration as income under the head of capital gain. 2 That the Id. assessing

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.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) /NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of issuing notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without obtaining proper sanction u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) /NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “AO”] by ITO, Ward- Bhiwadi [ for short AO]. 2 Roshal Lal vs. ITO 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 27 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons

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

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

condone the delay of 96\ndays in filing the appeals by the assessee in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition\nvs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The fact as culled out from the records is that M/s Shiv

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)

2. While organizing and reconciling the paperwork on my desk, I recently discovered the appeal papers handed over by the assessee. I recalled that although the appeal set was received from the assessee on ......, an oversight caused me to fail in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. This delay was purely unintentional and resulted from other matters being handled

SHRI KIRODI MAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

Appeal is dismissed

Section 147/144 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 23.12.2016. 2 Shri Kirodi Mal vs. ITO 2. This appeal was disposed off by an order dated 10.10.2019. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed for want of prosecution. In that appeal filed by the assessee there was a delay of 18 days and the bench

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

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

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

KALYAN SAHAI GURJAR,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 195/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 Kalyan Sahai Gurjar S/o Surja Ram Gurjar Bhojera, Virat Nagar, Jaipur cuke Vs. CIT(A) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALMPG 1989 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Prajapat (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@

delay of 2 days in bringing this appeal is condoned and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 5 Kalyan Sahai Gurjar vs. CIT 3. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. Source of cash deposit was the proceeds

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

condonation of delay in\r\nfiling the ITR in case of Co-Operative Societies claiming the deduction u/s 80P.\r\nAnd looking to the facts of the present case this circular is also applicable here\r\nand assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P.\r\n8.\r\nHowever the assessee had filed the ROI and Audit report suo-moto

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

151/- by treating the same as unexplained cash credits. 5. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities grossly erred in making an addition under section 68 of the Act on account of sundry creditors of Rs. 1,25,19,512/- by treating the same as unexplained cash credits