NARENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

163 days, attributing it to his illiteracy and unfamiliarity with the digital system. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, claiming he could not access income tax notices posted on the IT Portal. The ITAT accepted the explanation and condoned the delay.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee

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

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

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

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay and the same is condoned.\n8. The brief facts as culled out from the records are that asessee is a company and derives income from retail and wholesale sale of woods, timber, laminates and adhesives and allied activities. A search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried

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

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

163 Rajasthan which may kindly be allowed. 3. That the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendments made in the Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective in nature. 4. That the ld. DCIT, CPC is not justified in disallowing due to non-deduction of TDS on interest paid

HARISH CLAYS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

163 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed a condonation application dated 30-05-2022 mentioning therein that delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is occurred due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. The 2 ITA 233/JP/2022 HARISH CLAYS VS DCIT, CIRCLE4, JAIPUR ld. AR of the assessee

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay of 41 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs.\nMst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause in bringing the present appeal with\ndelay and the same is condoned

MAHARISHI MARKANDEYASUSHRUT SEWA SANSTHAN,KANTI NAGAR vs. ANIL KUMAR BHARDWAJ (CIT EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

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

163 days in filing the appeal for which Vice Chairman Shri Nitish Kumar Sharma filed a letter requesting therein to condone the delay for the reason thatthe assessee was under a bona fide belief that necessary compliance had been completed by the professional who are appointed. But it was not communicated to the assessee from their end that the procedural

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.”

condone the aforesaid delay. The appeal is, thus, taken up for disposal on merits. 4.3 It is observed that while processing the return of income, the AO has levied minimum alternate tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs.2,47,61,511/- Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant has contended that

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay in filing the appeal which is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has moved a prayer for admission of additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in completing

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay in filing the appeal which is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has moved a prayer for admission of additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in completing

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay in filing the appeal which is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has moved a prayer for admission of additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in completing

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

Condon the delay in filling of appeal due to non-receipts of assessment order in\ntime and time taken in obtaining copy of Sale Deed from Purchaser & the Humble Appellant is\nsenior Citizen aged 70 Years.\nThat the Learned Assessing Officer grossly eared in initiating the Penalty proceedings u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\nThat

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of filing disclosure under regulation 7(1) of SEBI Takeover regulations be condoned. I am of the view that the reliance placed by the Noticee on the afore-mentioned case does not support his case as in the referred case the non-disclosure by the appellant occurred mostly by not as active action by appellant but as a result