M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

condone the delay of 932 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

MEHAR CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 4.0 The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non maintainable since no order u/s 143(1) was filed. Further

SURBHI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

section 40A(3). 6. Under the fact and circumstances of the case to the Ld. AO was not justified in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C, 7. That the appellant reserved his right to add, amend, or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date of appeal hearing.” 3 Surbhi Agarwal vs. ITO 3. At the outset

HARSH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. The impugned assessment order u/s 144 rws 147/148 dated 01.12.2016 as well as the notice u/s 148 and the action taken by the ld. AO u/s 147 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want

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

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

PANKAJ MANI KULSHRESHTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

condone the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 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 was prevented by sufficient cause. 4 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal

RADHESHYAM MEENA,RAJGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

9. In view of the discussion and reasons recorded above, in the interest of justice, we hereby allow the appeal for statistical purposes, set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A)

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

234C is charged as per law, as applicable in Assessee’s case. Issue notice of demand and challan accordingly.” Since Assessing Officer felt satisfied that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income for the year under consideration, it was a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred

VINOD KUMAR CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay with following prayers: “Most Respectfully Showeth: 1. That the appellant is a senior citizen and a retired employee of the Indian Railways, earning mainly from pension income. 2. That the assessment order under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 20.11.2017, determining the total assessed income at ₹12,75,580, along with interest

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed return of income. Subsequently, a notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued to the assessee on 14/05/2012 and the assessment was completed by the A.O. U/s 147 r.w.s

PANCHU RAM BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपील सं. / ITA. No. 251/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Panchu Ram Bairwa Bhattiwali Dhani, Purani Chungi Agra Road, Paldi Meena, Jaipur बनाम Vs. The ITO, Ward-5 (3) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADUPB 3864 A निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT -DR सुनवाई

sections 234A, 2348, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without any justification, as no fax liability arises in the absence of an actual sale transaction.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal of the assessee, the Bench noted that there is delay of 576 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee

M/S. KALPANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), JAIPUR

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

234C of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.” 2. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity of reopening of assessment. At the time hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee as stated at bar that

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

234C of the Act. 4.0 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 60 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application dated 15-11-2021 for condonation of delay on the ground of prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic 4.1 The ld. DR during the course

KINKINI,BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

234C of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 6. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date

S R AUTOMOBILES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

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

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

condone the delay of 535 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 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 was prevented by sufficient cause. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the return declaring income

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Condonation of delay under clause (b) of sub-section (2) Section 119 of the Income Tax Act for returns of income claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act for various assessment years from AY 2018-19 to AY 2022-23- Reg.” We find from the available records that the assessment in the case of the assessee had been completed

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

condonation of delay in\r\nfiling the ITR in case of Co-Operative Societies claiming the deduction u/s 80P.\r\nAnd looking to the facts of the present case this circular is also applicable here\r\nand assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P.\r\n8.\r\nHowever the assessee had filed the ROI and Audit report suo-moto

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

RAM SWAROOP BALAI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

234C of the Act. 7. The appellant reserved her right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date of appeal hearing. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 149 days. The assessee vide application dated Nil has prayed for condonation of delay. In support of the application for condonation, the assessee