KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been

VIJAY PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

1), Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on ground of delay in filing appeal, ignoring the sufficient and unintended cause explained for such delay in Form No. 35, nor he provided specific opportunity to explain the reasons for delay nor did he act liberally for condonation of delav (Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

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.”

condoned the delay of 208 days. However, the ITAT observed that the assessee had failed to comply with income tax proceedings before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A). Despite various notices and opportunities, the assessee did not respond or participate in the proceedings. The ITAT noted that the appeal had been dismissed

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)

246A should have been filed on or before 23/09/2022. The present appeal has been filed on 19/01/2023 thereby there is a delay of 118 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of form 35 it is seen that the appellant has not requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and reasons have been not mentioned in column

JEENKRIPA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED,VAISHALI NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

246A within 30 days, following the date on which the order of assessment was served on the assessee. As per form 35 the date of the service of the order was served on the assessee on 07.12.2019 itself. While filing the grounds for condonation of delay in filing of the present /is the assessee has made the following averments. "Here

RAM SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR AJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,ALWAR vs. ITO WD1(1), ALWAR, ALWAR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condone the delay.\n4.2 It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A) [NFAC] that\nthe ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] did not decide the grounds of appeal on\nmerit but merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the\nground of Delay. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds\nraised by the assessee on merits.\n4.3 The Hon'ble Bombay

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

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

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

condone the delay of 83 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 is engaged in the business of distribution of milk of Jaipur dairy to the milk booths. He had filed his ITR for the relevant year, declaring total