MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 09.05.2019. 2 Mahaveer Prasad Jain vs. PCIT, Jaipur 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 220 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation

M/S MARATHON INDIA LTD.,RAJASTHAN vs. SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, PCIT-1, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

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

220 ITR 657 (Mad) 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed AO is held erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the purpose of section 263 of the I.T. Act. The said order has been passed by the Assessing Officer in a routine

BHIM SINGH,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter in to right rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. (D) In O.P. Kathapadia V. Lakhmir Singh AIR 1984 SC 1744, The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage

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

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

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

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

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

PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

delay of 462 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS VS PCIT, UDIAPUR Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal

KAMAL SINGH,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

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

delay so made in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee by holding the assessee had not submitted any new evidence or explanation to justify the nature and source of credit

KEDAR PRASAD VIJAY,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are disposed off as per\ndirection given supra

section 143(3) r.w.s.153A and 143(3) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the\nassessee in both the appeals are as under:-\nITA NOS. 1280 & 1281/JPR/2024\nSHRI KEDAR PRASAD VIJAY VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR\nITA No. 1280/JPR/2024 – A.Y. 2014-15\n1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts

KEDAR PRASAD VIJAY,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are disposed off as per\r\ndirection given supra

section 143(3) r.w.s.153A and 143(3) of the\r\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the\r\nassessee in both the appeals are as under:-\r\n\r\nITA NOS. 1280 & 1281/JPR/2024\r\nSHRI KEDAR PRASAD VIJAY VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR\r\n\r\nITA No. 1280/JPR/2024

HARI NARAYAN MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

delay\nof 60 days and has also explained that the reasons were beyond\nhis control. Considering the overall aspect of the matter we\nconsider the reasons advanced by the assessee and condone the\ndelay in bringing this appeal by the assessee and same is\ncondoned in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of Collector

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.\r\nA claim for deduction under section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a\r\nreturn filed beyond the time permitted under the Act, ignores the perspective that\r\nsees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in a valid return pre-\r\ncondition

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay is allowed. 4. Apropos Ground No 1 and 2 of the assessees, brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income (e-return) on 23-07-2016 declaring total income at Rs.22,96,01,790/- for the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny 4 HINDUSTAN SALES

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay are\ntrue and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit.\nPlace : Jaipur\nDate: 14.04.2025\nSd/-\nMaya Kumari\n( Deponent )\nVERIFICATION\nI, Maya Kumari W/o Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Aged years, R/o\n167, Om Shiv Colony Shyam Marg Jhotwara Jaipur Rajasthan 302012, do\nhereby verified that the contentions of above para

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ld.AO, without