DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

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

2. The assessee is a Government Department challenged the order passed by the AO under section 201(1) and 201(1A) before the ld. CIT (A). Since there was a delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT (A), the appeals of the assessee were dismissed as not maintainable in limine

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is now adjudicated on merit. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that a survey action 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 28-08-2018 at business premises of the assessee firm. The assessee filed its original return of income

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The action of ld.CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The action of ld.CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 201(1) & 201(1A) & 271C of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ] , by ACIT (TDS), Jaipur & ITO, TDS, Circle- 01, Jaipur. Bank of India vs. ITO 2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are almost identical or interrelated on grounds and on facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 201(1) & 201(1A) & 271C of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ] , by ACIT (TDS), Jaipur & ITO, TDS, Circle- 01, Jaipur. Bank of India vs. ITO 2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are almost identical or interrelated on grounds and on facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 201(1) & 201(1A) & 271C of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ] , by ACIT (TDS), Jaipur & ITO, TDS, Circle- 01, Jaipur. Bank of India vs. ITO 2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are almost identical or interrelated on grounds and on facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 201(1) & 201(1A) & 271C of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ] , by ACIT (TDS), Jaipur & ITO, TDS, Circle- 01, Jaipur. Bank of India vs. ITO 2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are almost identical or interrelated on grounds and on facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 201(1) & 201(1A) & 271C of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ] , by ACIT (TDS), Jaipur & ITO, TDS, Circle- 01, Jaipur. Bank of India vs. ITO 2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are almost identical or interrelated on grounds and on facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both

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 12A(1)(b) as these requirements are only directory in nature. This is the view expressed by the Honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P) Ltd as reported 41 Taxmann.com. Furthermore, it was explained before the Learned (CIT-NFAC) that it is a sufficient compliance with the procedure, if the Audit Report

VIJAY PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

condone a delay. In the instant case, the appellant has asserted non- service of the statutory notices initially as the main reason. However, when confronted with the remand report obtained from the AO in this regard, the appellant has changed the stand now stating that this as a sub-ground. As per the remand report, the issue of service

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, 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

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, 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 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 20.03.2019. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 30 days in filing of the present appeal by the revenue. In support revenue filed a petition for condonation

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 20.03.2019. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 30 days in filing of the present appeal by the revenue. In support revenue filed a petition for condonation

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 20.03.2019. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 30 days in filing of the present appeal by the revenue. In support revenue filed a petition for condonation

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