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

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeals by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Now we take up both the appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 3.2 Apropos to the grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.858/JP/2025 for the assessment year 2016-17, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeals by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Now we take up both the appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 3.2 Apropos to the grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.858/JP/2025 for the assessment year 2016-17, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

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

RUDRAX SHINE LOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BUNDI vs. ITO WARD BUNDI, BUNDI

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

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

delay of 63 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. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the return of income

MONIKA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone and allow admission of the appeal. 5. That the delay in filing Form 36 is solely due to lack of clarity over the new embedded provision in section 251

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD, 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

delay in filing the present appeal is condonable and is hereby condoned. 4. In this appeal, the assessee is mainly aggrieved by the order imposing the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the quantum appeal from which

SH. ABHAY KUMAR GODHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 546/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Abhay Kumar Godha 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar Jaipur - 303 003 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPG 4721K अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR स

condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the action of the AO. The narration as made by the ld CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’5. DECISION: (For grounds 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 & 2) 5.1 Despite of the various opportunities

MOHIT AGARWAL,SIKAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR, RAJASTHAN

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

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

delay of one day 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. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

delay so made by the assessee in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) is condoned. 7 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The narration so made

ANIL KUMAR MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 451 days in filing the appeal before us. 4 Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was living outside India and had no taxable income in India, therefore, no return of income was filed for the year under consideration. On the basis of AIR information, received from Vaishali

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

delay of 53 days in filing the cross objection 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. 6 Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 81 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. 4 Dynamic Powertech Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Having admitted the appeal

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

delay of 58 days filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,68,02,540/-. The assessee company claimed deduction

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay, they are not entitled to expand or enlarge a period of limitation as statutorily prescribed.” [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5.viii. Accordingly, observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and DCIT v. U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) cannot possibly be read or construed as a carte blanche enabling

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay, they are not entitled to expand or enlarge a period of limitation as statutorily prescribed.” [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5.viii. Accordingly, observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and DCIT v. U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd. (supra) cannot possibly be read or construed as a carte blanche enabling

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

condone the delay of 92 days in filing the cross objection. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the Revenue, brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Doctor by profession. He had filed his return of income on 28/9/2013 declaring total income of Rs 18,21,680/- along with audited Balance Sheet and Profit