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 :

ii) the delay occurred due to filing of writ petition The discussion on the factual correctness of these claims and the applicability from the condonation perspective is as under. D. Also in the present case the appellant was aware that the time limit to decide the present appeal is on the basis of the date of the receipt

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 :

ii) the delay occurred due to filing of writ petition The discussion on the factual correctness of these claims and the applicability from the condonation perspective is as under. D. Also in the present case the appellant was aware that the time limit to decide the present appeal is on the basis of the date of the receipt

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 :

ii) the delay occurred due to filing of writ petition The discussion on the factual correctness of these claims and the applicability from the condonation perspective is as under. D. Also in the present case the appellant was aware that the time limit to decide the present appeal is on the basis of the date of the receipt

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

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

ii) the delay occurred due to filing of writ petition\nThe discussion on the factual correctness of these claims and the applicability\nfrom the condonation perspective is as under.\nD. Also in the present case the appellant was aware that the time limit to decide\nthe present appeal is on the basis of the date of the receipt

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

condone the delay of 19 days in\nfiling the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471\n(SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derived

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)

ii) Ratanlal Dangi v/s ITO (1995) 51 TTJ 611 (JP) and CIT v/s Motilal (iii) Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) (iv) Vedbai v/s Shantaram Baburam Patil & Others (2002) 253 ITR 798 (SC) (v) Collector, Land & Acquisition v/s Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering

JAGDAMBA TOLLES,DHOLPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE BHARATPUR

In the result ground no. 2

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

condone the delay of 153 days 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 is prevented by sufficient cause and thus the bench considered it to dispose the appeal of the assessee

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

ii) of Section 80AC of the Act as was amended vide the Finance Act, 2018\r\nw.e.f. 01.04.2018 contemplated, that no deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act\r\nwould be admissible unless the assessee had furnished his return of income on\r\nor before the “due date” as specified under sub-section (1) of Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

II [Application or use of income or property for the benefit of persons referred to section 13(3)] of his audit report [Form 10B] that payment of salary was paid to Persons Specified u/s 13(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred

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

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

ii) The reply of the assessee is not acceptable as the Interest on\naccount of late payment of TDS was not an allowable expenditure u/s\n36(1)(iii) of the Act.\n(iii) Since no such addition on account of disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of\nthe Act had been made by the AO, while completing the assessment on\n15/04/2021

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

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)

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

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)

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

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)

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

MO. SHARIPH KURESHI,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD-4 SIKAR, SIKAR

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 of 7 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee had not filed ITR for the relevant year, as his income was below the threshold limit. The AO on the basis of cash deposits made

VIKAS DUGAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

delay is condoned. 6. As stated above, the present appeal has been filed by the Legal heir of the deceased assessee, Mr. Kesari Dugar, which has been assessed to tax for year under consideration vide assessment order dated 11.01.2021 u/s 153A of the Act. As per the assessee, it has duly filed all the information and details as called during

VIKAS DUGAR L/H OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

delay is condoned. 6. As stated above, the present appeal has been filed by the Legal heir of the deceased assessee, Mr. Kesari Dugar, which has been assessed to tax for year under consideration vide assessment order dated 11.01.2021 u/s 153A of the Act. As per the assessee, it has duly filed all the information and details as called during