SINGODWALA WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(4), JAIPUR

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

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

section 5.” 5.4 Following the discussions above, and considering the opinion expressed by Hon'ble Courts I rule that there is no condonation of delay application filed and therefore no sufficient cause given by the appellant to file the appeal delayed by 118 days. As a consequence the appeal filed beyond the due date of filing appeal without reasonable cause

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

condonation of delay in filing of Appeal.\n1\n02.\nWritten Submission\n2-13\n03.\nCircular F No. PR.CCIT/NeAC/SOP/2020-21\n14-25\n04.\nSalary Certificate\n26\n05.\n06.\n[2021] 133 taxmann.com283 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)\n[2003] 132 taxman 214 (SC)\n27-32\n33-34\n10. Per contra, Ld. DR has heavily relied on the findings

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

condoned.\n5.\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:\n“1. 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts of the case in confirming the validity of\nthe impugned notice u/s 148A of the Act as also the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated\n30.03.2022 are bad in law and facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. A AND J INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, JHOTWARA

236 days after the\nprescribed period of limitation.\nOn behalf of the appellant, an application seeking condonation of\ndelay has been filed. It is accompanied by affidavit of Shri Mukesh Goyal\nAccounts Head/Director of the applicant company.\nLd. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that initially the\nappeal was to be filed by the consultant engaged by the appellant

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decisionof 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 Apropos Ground of appeal of the assessee, the facts as emerges from

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 569 days in view of the decision of Hon’ble 8 Ahluwalia Erectors & Febricators Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT 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. 7. Now, coming to the merits of the issue the brief facts

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably

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

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

delay 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 by dismissing the appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several 4 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

delay of 20 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue 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 Revenue is prevented by sufficient cause in bringing this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised following

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

delay of 10 days in filing the 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. 5. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

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

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

SHRI KIRODI MAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

Appeal is dismissed

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned.” 3. The assessee has filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) against the order dated 10.10.2019 passed in ITA No. 883/JP/2017. 4. The ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee, in response to the MA submitted that the reasons as to why the assessee or the AR of the assessee could