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

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

c), 274 of the Act against the assessee in a mechanical manner. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing. 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 636 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

c) to (f) of Section 200A by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/6/2015. It was stated in the written submissions that the fee for late filing the statement U/s 234E can be levied only on the issue of intimation U/s 200A w.e.f. 01/6/2015 only. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India

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)

c)/demand notice as I had shifted to new address at 15, Anand Vihar Ext. Macheda, Harmada, Sikar Road, Jaipur. (3) After staying for less than a year at 15, Gaytri Nagar, Alok Vihar, Road No. 14, V.K. Industrial Area, I had shifted to the present address which is Macheda, Harmara, Sikar Road, Jaipur, 9 VIJAY PRAKASH SHARMA

SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

c) to (f) of Section 200A by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/6/2015. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (2015) 229 taxman 596 (Bom) while examining the constitutional validity of Section 234E has upheld the validity and also held as under: 9. We have heard the learned counsel, and perused

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

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

SHRI HARI RAM YADAV,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Now coming to the merits of the case. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 21.01.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,38,250/-, notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee and thereafter