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.  Prashant Projects Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 37 taxmann.com 137/145 ITD 202 (Mum - Tribunal):-The expression 'sufficient cause' is not defined in the Act, but it means a cause which is beyond the control of an assessee. For invoking the aid of the section 249, any cause which prevents a person approaching the CIT(A), within time is considered

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

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

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)

202 days in filing the present appeal. In support of condonation of delay, an Affidavit of Shri Phool Chand Chaudhary, Executive Director 3 M/s. Om Shiv Properties Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. of assessee company along with an application dated 28.10.2020 under 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:

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SHRI GANPATI DEVELOPERS, KOTA

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1348/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Shri Ganpati Developers, Vs. Circle-1, C-150, Road No. 5, I.P.I.A., Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 8967 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

202 after a cutting of Brajesh's name) the transaction for this flat is complete as the cheque is received on 10.08.2012, then why wrong names appear in the sheet is not clarified by the A.O. Page 32 & 33 is agreement for flat no. 101 by Sh. Anil Mundra & Sh. Ashok Sharma partners & the purchaser column is blank. Page

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

delay of 53 days in filing the cross objection 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. 6 Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

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

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

Bench: The Bench. However, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay With Following Prayer. ‘’’…It Is To Submit That The Cit(A) Order Was Passed On 26-10-2022 & Was Issued On The E-Mail Of The Bank. It Did Not Come To The Notice As The Bank System Marked The E-Mail As Spam Mail & Transferred The Same To Spam Folder. On Being Aware, We Requested For True & Certified Copy Of The Order & Received True & Certified Copy Of The Order On 06-04-2024 & Submitted Appeal Before Your Goodself On 31-05-2024 At Online Portal.

202, Govardhan Jaipur Colony, Opp. Sanjivini Hospital, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JPRB02554G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Shailesh Mantri, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 22/07/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in treating the assessee as representative assessee while it should be treated as AOP, because it has derived income which

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

condoned. 3 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Nandi International and engaged in import and trading of Glass Chaton, Glass beads and silver jewellery. The assessee filed his return of income on 27/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 9,01,270/-. The case

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay of 58 days in filing the\nappeal before us.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee the assessee is a\ncompany engaged in hotel business. The assessee filed its return of\nincome on 30.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs. (-) 15,24,86,880/-. A search\nwas conducted on 30.10.2014 in the case

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable