SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

condone the delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 9. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from Natani Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. as salary being Director of the company, house property and interest also. Return of income was electronically filed on 16/12/2015 declaring total income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

SHYAM APPARELS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

condone the delay and heard the appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income declaring total income at Rs. NIL was filed by the assessee on 29/09/2012 (after claiming set off of brought forwarded losses of Rs. 18,41,151/-). The assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business

ITO, JAIPUR vs. SHYAM APPARELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

condone the delay and heard the appeal on merits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income declaring total income at Rs. NIL was filed by the assessee on 29/09/2012 (after claiming set off of brought forwarded losses of Rs. 18,41,151/-). The assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business

ALOK MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

delay occurred of 831 days in filing 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. 3.1 Now we come to the main issue that the appeal

INTEGRAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

206 (PC) for the aforesaid reasons, the Privy Council too distinguished its earlier decision in Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria's case (supra). It was a case in which a testator had by his will appointed the appellants his executors and had directed them to pay Rs. 10,000 out of the income of his property on the occasion

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

condone the delay of 292 days in filing of appeal. 5. It is observed that during the year under consideration the assessee sold property situated at Village Deoli Arab Road, Tehsil Ladpura, and Kota for Rs. 3.08 Cr. Which was jointly owned by the assessee himself and some Mr. Naveen Kumar in 50:50, meaning thereby the share

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

delay of 47 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is considered and condone 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. Brief facts of the case are that in the case

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

delay of 47 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is considered and condone 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. Brief facts of the case are that in the case

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the ground no

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. On merits, the ld. AR raised various contentions and relied on the written submissions which read as under:- “Ground of Appeal No. 1 4 Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur 1. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the relavant assessment

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.”

condone the aforesaid delay. The appeal is, thus, taken up for disposal on merits. 4.3 It is observed that while processing the return of income, the AO has levied minimum alternate tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs.2,47,61,511/- Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant has contended that

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condoned by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of AdisankaraSpg. Mills (P.) Ltd. Thus, assessee could not have been deemed as one in default under section 206C(6D) of the Act or liable for interest under section 206(7). ChandmalSanchetiVs. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 313 (Jaipur) (Trib.) The relevant Para 10 of the order reads as under

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condoned by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of AdisankaraSpg. Mills (P.) Ltd. Thus, assessee could not have been deemed as one in default under section 206C(6D) of the Act or liable for interest under section 206(7). ChandmalSanchetiVs. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 313 (Jaipur) (Trib.) The relevant Para 10 of the order reads as under

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condoned by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of AdisankaraSpg. Mills (P.) Ltd. Thus, assessee could not have been deemed as one in default under section 206C(6D) of the Act or liable for interest under section 206(7). ChandmalSanchetiVs. ITO (2016) 160 ITD 313 (Jaipur) (Trib.) The relevant Para 10 of the order reads as under

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

PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 3 days in filling this appeal in the interest of justice. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is an Individual and is engaged in export of gems & jewellery after purchasing it from local market under the name & style of M/s S Naveen Jewellers. The assesses had filed return