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

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

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

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

section 144 2 Ishan Arora vs. ITO r.w.s. 147 of the Act by ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur [ for short AO] before him. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without condoning the same, despite existence

JAIRAJ SINGH SOLANKI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

condonation of delay ignoring the sufficient material and evidences available on record, being the strong case on merit. Hence the order so passed by the Id. CIT(A) in gross breach of law and against the principal of natural justice and liable to be quashed and entire additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be deleted. 3.1. Rs.9

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoning the delay. The individual grounds of appeal are discussed here under- Grounds of Appeal 1. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliance of opportunity granted by him whereas the appeal required

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)

section 5 of the Act of 1963, delay should be condoned where ‘sufficient cause’ is established by the Applicant. It is settled law that, the term ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Unless and until delay is found to be deliberate / intentional/ grossly negligent or aimed at taking undue advantage by creating groundless

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY,ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 11 & 12. Not only that, even the dead line extended by the board was up to 365 days whereas in this case delay is much beyond. Thus, the same is rightly denied to the assessee by the CPC. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record. The ld. AR of the assessee placed

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 932 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched

AJMER VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, BHUPALSAGAR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDHUT NITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

condone the delay of 3636 days before Ld. CIT(A). 10. Now coming to the fact of the case bench noted that the intimation u/s 200A/206CB was issued on 12.03.2014 levying a fee of Rs. 58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter