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

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

6. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal on the grounds as stated herein above. In support of the various grounds so taken the ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed written submission dealing with the merits of the case and on the applicability of provision of section

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

6. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal on the grounds as stated herein above. In support of the various grounds so taken the ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed written submission dealing with the merits of the case and on the applicability of provision of section

RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

section 44AD of the Act. It may be mentioned here that present appeal before this Appellate Tribunal has been filed 243 days, after the prescribed period. In order to seek condonation of said delay, the applicant has filed an application. In support of the application, assessee has filed his affidavit. Arguments heard. File perused. 3. So far as the delay

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)

condonation of delay wherein the Bench does not find any sufficient and reasonable cause for late filing the appeal by the assessee. Hence, the same is dismissed. 3.1 Now the Bench feels that the case of the assessee should also be adjudicated upon on merit wherein the crux of the issue in the appeal relates to late deposit of employees

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 313 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a NRI presently residing in UAE (Dubai). The assessee filed e-return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 04.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 5,51,68,940/- including long term capital gain

KEDAR PRASAD VIJAY,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are disposed off as per\ndirection given supra

section 143(3) r.w.s.153A and 143(3) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the\nassessee in both the appeals are as under:-\nITA NOS. 1280 & 1281/JPR/2024\nSHRI KEDAR PRASAD VIJAY VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR\nITA No. 1280/JPR/2024 – A.Y. 2014-15\n1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts

KEDAR PRASAD VIJAY,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are disposed off as per\r\ndirection given supra

section 143(3) r.w.s.153A and 143(3) of the\r\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the\r\nassessee in both the appeals are as under:-\r\n\r\nITA NOS. 1280 & 1281/JPR/2024\r\nSHRI KEDAR PRASAD VIJAY VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR\r\n\r\nITA No. 1280/JPR/2024

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

6. That thereafter we discussed the matter with the counsel now what to do. Then he asked to file the appeal with the condonation of delay being a strong case in our favour. As there is a very reasonable and sufficient cause of delay being human being mistake. Thereafter our other counsel has started to prepare the appeal

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

6. That thereafter we discussed the matter with the counsel now what to do. Then he asked to file the appeal with the condonation of delay being a strong case in our favour. As there is a very reasonable and sufficient cause of delay being human being mistake. Thereafter our other counsel has started to prepare the appeal

URMILA TANK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Tribunal On 22.04.2023 Within The Time Limit. The Due Date Of Filing

condone the delay of 3 (three) days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Now we come to the merits of the present appeal. 3 Smt. Urmila Tank, Jaipur. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of ld. CIT (A) in upholding the addition on account of duty drawback. 5. In this regard

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

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

195, the date of payment of the tax, or (b) where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty; Provided that where an application has been made under section 146 for reopening an assessment, the period from the date on which the application is made

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

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

condoned. 5. As regards the decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, there is no dispute that the appeal filed against the deceased assessee is not covered under the provisions of section 292B and, therefore, the same is an invalid appeal liable to be dismissed. However, the appeal dismissed being invalid in limini due to the reason

DCIT, CIRCLE EXEMPTION JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. STATE INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, JAIPR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

condonation for Audit Reports & for accumulation in form 10&10B, while ld. CIT(A) does not have any right for same" iv. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing accumulation under 11(2), while there was not conscious accumulation by assesse, no earmarking fund