SITA RAM SAINI,CHOMU, JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

section 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [ for short “Act” ] by the ITO, Ward-7(3), Jaipur [ for short AO]. 2 Sh. Sita Ram Saini vs. ITO 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 29 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which

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

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No. 1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for discussions, and on this aspect of the matter ld. DR has not raised any West Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO objection. Accepting this consensus, we proceed

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

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

166; 118 ITR 507(Supreme Court), and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. MstKatiji and Ors. 1987(2) SCC 107, delay caused by erroneous advice of the Applicant's Consultant should be condoned to advance substantial justice. In light of this judgment, the applicant submits that the Applicant had sufficient gause for delay and the delay be condoned

M/S. ADARSH GHANYODYA VIKAS SAMITI,TONK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Ao & Even No Evidence Or Details As Called For By The Ao Was Filed During The Adarsh Ghanyodya Vikas Samiti, Tonk.

section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were belated by 352 days, 396 days and 166 days respectively. The assessee filed the application for condonation of delay

M/S. ADARSH GHANYODYA VIKAS SAMITI,TONK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Ao & Even No Evidence Or Details As Called For By The Ao Was Filed During The Adarsh Ghanyodya Vikas Samiti, Tonk.

section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were belated by 352 days, 396 days and 166 days respectively. The assessee filed the application for condonation of delay

M/A. ADARSH GHANYODYA VIKAS SAMITI,TONK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Ao & Even No Evidence Or Details As Called For By The Ao Was Filed During The Adarsh Ghanyodya Vikas Samiti, Tonk.

section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were belated by 352 days, 396 days and 166 days respectively. The assessee filed the application for condonation of delay

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

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed return of income. Subsequently, a notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued to the assessee on 14/05/2012 and the assessment was completed by the A.O. U/s 147 r.w.s

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

delay in filling these three appeals by the assessee.\n6.\nBefore we take up these appeals on its merits, after condoning the\ndelay, the Id. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No.\n1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for\ndiscussions, and on this aspect of the matter

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

delay in filling these three appeals by the assessee.\n6.\nBefore we take up these appeals on its merits, after condoning the\ndelay, the Id. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No.\n1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for\ndiscussions, and on this aspect of the matter

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned 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. 5. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

SANGA AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 7,, 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)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Sanga Automobiles (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 249 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ld.AO, without