SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay of 240 days in filing of both these appeals. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals as under :- ITA No. 152/JP/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 : “ 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 468 (Chandigarh- Trib.), the ITAT held that the enabling provisions of sub- clause (v) of section 143(1) providing for disallowance of deduction under section 80P due to late filing of return having been introduced by Finance Act, 2021 effective from 1

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

condone the delay, then your honoe is also having the power being higher forum then to PCIT. 10 ITA NO.772/JP/2023 THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD under section 80-IA or any other section of Chapter VI A, assessee should have filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction

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

153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri\r\nService Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 468 (Chandigarh-\r\nTrib.), the ITAT held that the enabling provisions of sub- clause (v) of section\r\n143(1) providing for disallowance of deduction under section 80P due to late\r\nfiling of return having been introduced by Finance

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 :

condonation first as a preliminary issue, noting the misrepresentation and failure to show sufficient cause. 5. Specifically record in the order that the assessee, despite being represented by a High Court practitioner, misrepresented the findings of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, which is a serious matter undermining the sanctity of judicial proceedings. Procedural Request – Adjournment/Long Date 1. The Bench

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 :

condonation first as a preliminary issue, noting the misrepresentation and failure to show sufficient cause. 5. Specifically record in the order that the assessee, despite being represented by a High Court practitioner, misrepresented the findings of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, which is a serious matter undermining the sanctity of judicial proceedings. Procedural Request – Adjournment/Long Date 1. The Bench

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 :

condonation first as a preliminary issue, noting the misrepresentation and failure to show sufficient cause. 5. Specifically record in the order that the assessee, despite being represented by a High Court practitioner, misrepresented the findings of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, which is a serious matter undermining the sanctity of judicial proceedings. Procedural Request – Adjournment/Long Date 1. The Bench

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 :

condonation first as a preliminary issue, noting the misrepresentation and failure to show sufficient cause. 5. Specifically record in the order that the assessee, despite being represented by a High Court practitioner, misrepresented the findings of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, which is a serious matter undermining the sanctity of judicial proceedings. Procedural Request – Adjournment/Long Date 1. The Bench

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the\ncompletion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.\nThus, the notice issued by the Ld. AO and the proceedings concluded\nthereafter was illegaland non-curable u/s-292BB of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 as 124(3) do not validate the order issued u/s 201(1)/201(1A).\nHence, considering the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SHEENA MATHUR, JAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is dismissed

condone the mistake of the assessee and replace the return with the revised return. The same is enclosed along with the computation for your kind perusal.” 5. The reply filed by the assessee was considered though not found acceptable by the AO for the reasons stated in the assessment order which are reproduced as under:- “The assessee has revised

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

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

153A of the Act is concerned. The interim order dated 26.10.2010 is\nvacated. The order under Section 127 of the Act dated 07.07.2009 is upheld. The\nrespondent No.1, Assistant Commissioner may decide the objections of the assessee-\nTrust in pursuance of notice Annex-5 dated 24.08.2009 within one month from today and\nthe assessee-Trust will be free to proceed

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOTA

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

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

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.” 10.6 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

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

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.” 10.6 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOTA

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

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

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.” 10.6 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

SHRI NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “ 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio and therefore deserves to be quashed

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

Delay condoned.\nHaving regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in\nthe matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.\nPending application(s) shall stand disposed of.\"\n10.6 Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs.\nAnuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

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