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 as a threshold issue; record that the assessee misrepresented facts and failed to show sufficient cause. 4. On merits, uphold the transfer under Section 127 and dismiss the challenge. 5. The Revenue requests that the above submission may be taken on record as a part of hearing while deciding the Appeal of the Assessee in issue of transfer

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 as a threshold issue; record that the assessee misrepresented facts and failed to show sufficient cause. 4. On merits, uphold the transfer under Section 127 and dismiss the challenge. 5. The Revenue requests that the above submission may be taken on record as a part of hearing while deciding the Appeal of the Assessee in issue of transfer

A.N. SCHOOL SHIKSHA SAMITI,SIKAR vs. JCIT-RANGE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 252/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 A.N. School Shiksha Samiti, Cuke J.C.I.T.-Range Vs. Radha Swami Bag, (Exemption) Sikar-303702 Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabaa 6164 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kr Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 06/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 272A(2)(E) Dated 02/11/2018 As Well As Notices Are Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,53,700/- U/S 272A(2)(E) Invoked By The Ld Jcit. The Penalty So Imposed & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Deleted.

condone the delay of 132 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. The brief facts of the case are that as per the revenue, the assessee trust was required to file its return of income U/s 139(4C)(e) of the Act by 31/07/2010 for the year under consideration. However, return in this case

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

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing genuine and bonafide reasons. The Tribunal noted that the AO initiated proceedings against a non-existent entity, which is illegal. Furthermore, the AO passed the order under Section 201/201(1A) without issuing notices to employees and without proper jurisdiction, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted the pendency

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

VISHAL BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

delay; the merit of the case has not been discussed.” 5. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed an affidavit of the Chartered Accountant (CA) and the contention of the affidavit of the CA is reproduced here in below: “I, Alok Modani, aged 43 years, son of Late Shri P.D Modani, residing at A- 503, Manglam Anchal, Kalwar Road

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

condone the delay of 96\ndays in filing the appeals by the assessee in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition\nvs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The fact as culled out from the records is that M/s Shiv

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 569 days in view of the decision of Hon’ble 8 Ahluwalia Erectors & Febricators Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT 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. 7. Now, coming to the merits of the issue the brief facts

DYNAMIC CABLES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Filing Income Tax Return Even After Supreme Court Judgement & High Court Judgement (Including Rajasthan High Court & Itat Jaipur Bench) On This Issue In Favour Of The Assessee.

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 4 Dynamic Cables Ltd. vs CPC, BENGALURU/AO, CIRCLE-1, Jaipur 5.1 The Bench during the course of hearing observed that the only issue arises in this appeal of the assessee is regarding disallowance of employee’s contribution of PF and ESI deposited belatedly but before due date of filing of return

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur has erred in withdrawing the registration u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(Exemptions) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

KUNAN MAL KALU RAM JAIN AND COMPANY ,TONK vs. ITO,TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 113 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 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. 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decisionof 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. 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal of the assessee, the facts as emerges from

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

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 5.1 The Bench further during the course of hearing observed that Ground No. 1 to 3 of the assessee in this appeal of the assessee are regarding disallowance of employee’s contribution of PF and ESI deposited belatedly but before due date of filing of return of income

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

delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) is condoned. 7 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The narration so made

ITO, JAIPUR vs. SHYAM APPARELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

192 to the effect that when two views are possible on an issue, then the one favouring assessee has to be preferred. Thus, the action of ITA 497 & 549/JP/2016_ 3 ITO Vs. Shyam Apparels Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be hold bad in law and the addition so sustained deserves to be deleted. 1.2 That

SHYAM APPARELS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

192 to the effect that when two views are possible on an issue, then the one favouring assessee has to be preferred. Thus, the action of ITA 497 & 549/JP/2016_ 3 ITO Vs. Shyam Apparels Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be hold bad in law and the addition so sustained deserves to be deleted. 1.2 That

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

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

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 in are bad in law and on the facts Lalit Kumar