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)

2) Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does

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

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

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

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

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

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)

2- BECAUSE, upon due consideration of facts and in the overall circumstances of the case, assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act and confirmed by the Id CIT(A) is quite wrong, unjust and illegal. 3- BECAUSE, in any view, and without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the income assessed, interest charged, penalty imposed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

220/- by making total addition at Rs.30,02,950/ Details of the additions are as under: 1. Capital contribution Rs 2,17,141/, 2 Unexplained credit at Rs.10,500/-, 3. Diesel expenses at Rs.11,56,314/-, 4. Purchase of material like stone and rubble, sand and gritt at Rs.3,96,580/-, S. Arbitration Award receipts at Rs.8

MO. SHARIPH KURESHI,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD-4 SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee had not filed ITR for the relevant year, as his income was below the threshold limit. The AO on the basis of cash deposits made

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay of 5 (five) days in filing the appeal\nbefore us.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company, filed its return\nof income on 21.09.2012 declaring a total income of Rs.2,25,82,056/- and the\nassessment was completed under section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 at an income

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BEAWAR vs. SANGEETA BAFNA, MEWARI BAZAR BEAWAR

13. In view of the above discussion, ITA No

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Feeling Aggrieved By Assessment Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2022-23. Vide Said Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Finally Computed Taxable Income Of The Assessee As Under:- “Final Computation Of Taxable Income: Sl. No. Description Amount (In Inr)

220/- 3 Variation in respect of issue as per para at 4.5 1,64,11,510/- 4 Total income/Loss determined as per the above 3,03,60,730/- proposal 6. Assessee at income of Rs. 3,03,60,730/- under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under reporting of income issued