BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 143(1)(a)(iv). 2 SHRI BHANU PRAKASH BANSAL VS ITO,WARD 2(3), KOTA (ii) the said amount has been paid before due date of filing of return and thus cannot be added to income in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. SBBJ 99 DTR 131 and CIT vs. Jaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act”] by AO, CPC. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 81 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “Sub: M/s Dynamic Powertech Private

NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

delay of 154 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of CPC in making disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC, paid before the due date of filing

LALIT KUMAR CHABRA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KOTA

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

delay of 157 days in filing of appeal, please condone. 2. The impugned order dated 12.05.2020 passed by CPC u/s 154 is bad in law and on the facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other statutory reasons, and hence, the same may kindly be quashed and in any case, the impugned additions made there

LALIT KUMAR CHABRA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KOTA

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

delay of 157 days in filing of appeal, please condone. 2. The impugned order dated 12.05.2020 passed by CPC u/s 154 is bad in law and on the facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other statutory reasons, and hence, the same may kindly be quashed and in any case, the impugned additions made there

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

delay without condoning the same, despite existence of bonafide and sufficient cause. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order dated 26.02.2014 was never served earlier and the appeal was filed promptly after receiving a copy in 2019. 3. That the Ld. AO erred in making an addition ofRs.17,26,200 as unexplained cash deposits

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in treating the assessee as representative assessee while it should be treated as AOP, because it has derived income which

WHOLERY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

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

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

delay of 13 days has been condoned. The assessee has raised ground of appeal with the grievance that Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in passing rectification order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard assessee has stated that 1. That the Ld. AO has passed the order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the said delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 4. In ITA No. 41/JP/2021 for A.Y 2018-19, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as he failed to appreciate that disallowance under section

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the said delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 4. In ITA No. 41/JP/2021 for A.Y 2018-19, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as he failed to appreciate that disallowance under section

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY,ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 12A(1)(b). Therefore, the CPC correctly denied the exemption in the intimation. In the absence of the audit report in Form 10B, it cannot be said that there was mistake apparent from record in the intimation dated 17.10.2019 as the Form 4 Rajasthan Medical Relief Society vs. ITO(E) 10B was uploaded much later on 28.01.2020. Since there

SHRI VERDHMAN STHANAKVASI JAIN SHRISANGH,KOTA vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay in filling the appeals by the assessee. 4. Brief facts of this case are that the assesseefiled application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income TaxAct, 1961 was filed by the assesseeonline on 27.12.2022. A letter/notice No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2023- 24/1051873342(1) dated 05.04.2023 was issued at the e-mail/address provided in the application

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

condone the delay of 292 days in filing of appeal. 5. It is observed that during the year under consideration the assessee sold property situated at Village Deoli Arab Road, Tehsil Ladpura, and Kota for Rs. 3.08 Cr. Which was jointly owned by the assessee himself and some Mr. Naveen Kumar in 50:50, meaning thereby the share

MEHAR CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

section 143(1) r.w.s. 154. Accordingly he has not filed the copy of intimation u/s 143(1) but has filed the copy of intimation u/s 154 against which the present appeal is filed. The date of intimation u/s 154 is 15.06.2019 against which the assessee has filed the appeal on 22.06.2019. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is within

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT LTD.,MANSAROVAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income For The Assessment Year.

section 43B on or before filing of ITR u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (ii) Appellant was under the process of filing of application u/s 154 for rectification of mistake, three time online at CPC portal and 2 time off line with AO. Neither CPC grant the relief nor Jurisdictional AO has processed the 154 applications, therefore

VIDYA SAMITI ARYA SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 50 & 217 days in filing of these appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following affidavit :- “I, Nand Kishore Son, s/o Late Hari Charn soni, aged

VIDYA SAMITI ARYA SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 50 & 217 days in filing of these appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay with following affidavit :- “I, Nand Kishore Son, s/o Late Hari Charn soni, aged

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

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

154 25-02-2008, ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur 289/JP/2022 1989-90 271(1)(b) 16-07-2004, ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur 290/JP/2022 1992-93 271(1)(b) 01-06-2022, ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi 291/JP/2022 1992-93 271(1)(c) 01-06-2022, ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi 2.0 The Grounds raised by the assessee in respective