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 :

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above) and being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is dismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be taken upon merits. 5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 7. As the assessee

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 :

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above) and being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is dismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be taken upon merits. 5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 7. As the assessee

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 :

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above) and being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is dismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be taken upon merits. 5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 7. As the assessee

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

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

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above)\nand being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is\ndismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be\ntaken upon merits.\n5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.\n7. As the assessee

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

section 201(1A) of Rs.5,45,119/- totaling Rs. 62,85,019,/-. Later on the assessee was advised to file appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and accordingly the appeal 4 Zila Parisad vs. ITO TDS was filed on 25.12.2019 with a delay of 168 days. The ld. A/R submitted that the delay was caused due to constant discussion with

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

section 201(1A) of Rs. 12,64,831/- totaling Rs. 71,81,854/-. Later on the assessee was advised to file appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and accordingly the appeal was filed on 25.12.2019 with a delay of 168 days. The ld. A/R submitted that the delay was caused due to constant discussion with Income Tax Department and HUDCO

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,CHURU vs. ITO TDS-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,CHURU vs. ITO TDS-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,CHURU vs. ITO, TDS (3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

section 5 of the\nLimitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by\ndisposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the\nlegislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful\nmanner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,CHURU vs. ITO(TDS)-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

section 5 of the\nLimitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by\ndisposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the\nlegislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful\nmanner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose

SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

condonation of delay. "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay." The fee for default in furnishing statement U/s 234E of the Act can be levied

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

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

condonation of delay. "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay." The fee for default in furnishing statement U/s 234E of the Act can be levied

KAILASH CHAND MEENA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

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 451 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 13.06,2017 declaring income of Rs. 4,02,330/-. Later on revised return of income was filed on 21.06.2017 declaring income

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

KINKINI,BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

168 taxmann.com 462 (Gujarat). Thus, it will be seen that the Petitioner-Assessee could not be denied the exemption merely because Form 10B was not filed within time. In such circumstances, the denial on the part of the Department to condone the delay in complying with the procedural requirement on the part of the Assessee would result in denial

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

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 3.1 The Ground of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- (1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO (CPC) has erred in passing order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following the procedure as laid down under such section

BHARTESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

condone the delay of 94 days. 4 Bhartesh Jain vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur 3. The assessee has assailed this appeal on following grounds; “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred in holding the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,DAUSA RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD, DAUSA, ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal is Dismissed

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

168 & 169/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 Shri Mukesh Kumar Saini cuke The ITO, CHOKARVADA RAM CHANDRA KA Vs. Ward-Dausa, Dausa BAGH, SIKAR, DAUSA 303 301 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: COKPS 8454 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CA (Thru:VC) jktLo dh vksj