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 :

197 DTR 329 /318 CTR 369 (Delhi) SHL India (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2021] 128 taxmann.com 426 (Bom.) C. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of condonation of delay: 13. The impugned assessment order u/s 153C, dated 18.03.2024, was received by the Appellant on 18.04.2024 after making application on 12.04.2024 (available

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 :

197 DTR 329 /318 CTR 369 (Delhi) SHL India (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2021] 128 taxmann.com 426 (Bom.) C. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of condonation of delay: 13. The impugned assessment order u/s 153C, dated 18.03.2024, was received by the Appellant on 18.04.2024 after making application on 12.04.2024 (available

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 :

197 DTR 329 /318 CTR 369 (Delhi) SHL India (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2021] 128 taxmann.com 426 (Bom.) C. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Appeal on the ground of condonation of delay: 13. The impugned assessment order u/s 153C, dated 18.03.2024, was received by the Appellant on 18.04.2024 after making application on 12.04.2024 (available

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

197 Taxman 435 (Del) distinguished” (vii) Anand Shankar Mittal v/s DCIT (2010) 34 DTR 589 (JP Trib) (DPB 9- 19) Therefore, in view of the above, it is humbly prayed that Ld. CIT(A), may be pleased to kindly allow the present application and condone the delay of 640 days occurred in filing the aforesaid Appeal, and direct the listing

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

17-02-2025 with a delay of 165 days. As per above fact, there was no conscious default on assessee’ s part in filing the appeal within due date and humbly prays that for other defaults, appellant should not be penalized. An affidavit of assessee in this regard certifying the above said facts is enclosed herewith

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

17-02-2025 with a delay of 165 days. As per above fact, there was no conscious default on assessee’ s part in filing the appeal within due date and humbly prays that for other defaults, appellant should not be penalized. An affidavit of assessee in this regard certifying the above said facts is enclosed herewith

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

17 of Form-35: “Address to which\nnotices may be sent to the appellant” respectively. However, after being so clear\nwith respect to the serving of any communication, the order was neither served\nphysically to the above address nor sent to the e-mail id of my CA.\n5.\nIt was only on 7th February, upon receiving the penalty notice

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

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT FACLESS, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay of 782 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 and therefore the same is condoned. 5. Before moving towards the facts

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay of 782 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 and therefore the same is condoned. 5. Before moving towards the facts

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned, having regard to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC). 5. Appeal has also been argued on merits. Assessee-appellant has raised following grounds: - "1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

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 u/s 148 of the Act dated\n30.03.2022 are bad in law and facts

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

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

PADAM CHAND DHADDA HUF,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay. Hence the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3 ITA No. 40/JP/2017. M/s Padam Chand Dhadda HUF, Jaipur. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessment under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) framed vide order dated

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay as observed by the registry. 5. Now coming to the merits of the appeal. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A of the IT. Act, 1961 at the business premises of the assessee company was carried out on 02.08.2017 which was subsequently converted into search and seizure action operation as per provision

SMT. PUSHPA JOSHI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay but the assessment was framed on the basis of the return of income filed by the assessee. This fact is further manifested in the computation of income by the A.O. as under: “Subject to the above discussion, the total income of the assessee is computed as under: Income declared by the assessee Rs. 9,840/- Add: Long term capital

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

delay of one\nday. Considering that aspect of the matter the bench condone the\ndelay one day.\n3. The Grounds of appeal raised in the cross appeal of the\nRevenue and assessee are as under:-\nITA No.1149/JP/2024 – A.Y. 2017-18 (Revenue)\n“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.\nCIT(A) has erred