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

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

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)

delay without condoning the same, despite existence of bonafide and sufficient cause. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order dated 26.02.2014 was never served earlier and the appeal was filed promptly after receiving a copy in 2019. 3. That the Ld. AO erred in making an addition ofRs.17,26,200 as unexplained cash deposits

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)

200 (SC) (iv) Vedbai v/s Shantaram Baburam Patil & Others (2002) 253 ITR 798 (SC) (v) Collector, Land & Acquisition v/s Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: The legislature has conferred the power to condone

M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay in e-filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and also by holding that since the appeal was manually filed by the assessee before the CIT (A) was within the limitation, therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is to be treated as filed within limitation. With these observations, we allow this additional ground raised

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)

3. Social Security Scheme of GICEA vs CIT (Exemption) 147 Taxmann.com 283 (Gujarat). Wherein the courts have held the assessee trust having substantially satisfied conditions for availing exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961, it should not be denied exemption merely on bar of limitation especially when legislature had conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay in filing

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

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

condone the delay before this Appellate Tribunal. 4 Jitendra Kumar TahilramanI vs. ITO 6. Now coming to the merits of the dispute, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in making additions

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay and the same is condoned.\n8. The brief facts as culled out from the records are that asessee is a company and derives income from retail and wholesale sale of woods, timber, laminates and adhesives and allied activities. A search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried

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:

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

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)

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

condonation of delay and affidavit. The same may kindly be allowed. The Cross objections of the assessee are as under: 1. ‘Alternatively, the learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F Rs 94,39,201/- and the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deciding alternate Ground No.4 of the assessee which was before

BABLI,TIJARA, ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHIWADI

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 420/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Babli Shri Vijay Pal, Brampuri, Tijara, Alwar cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-Bhiwadi LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BHQPB 3714 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Vedant Agarwal (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hear

section 115BBE of the Act.” 3. At the out set of the hearing of the appeal it is noted the appeal filed is delayed by 3 days. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the petition for condonation of delay as reproduced here in below: “Sub: Application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal no ITA 420/JPR/2022

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay of 41 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs.\nMst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause in bringing the present appeal with\ndelay and the same is condoned

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