SH. SANJIV JHA,DHOLPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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)

delay is condoned. 3.1 As regards the 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. The narration as made by the ld CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’6. DECISION: 6.1. Ground No. 1 pertains to addition

BHAWANI SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(1), JPR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay of 419 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. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

delay of 18 days\nin filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and\nOthers, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause.\n3.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

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

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

KUNAN MAL KALU RAM JAIN AND COMPANY ,TONK vs. ITO,TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 113 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 is prevented by sufficient cause. 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

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

AKASH PROMOTORS DEVELOPER PRIVATE LIMITED,2385, AKASHDEEP COMPLEX vs. ITO,WARD 1(1), ITO, WARD 1(1)

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

Bench: Your Honours In The Offline Mode On 30.05.2023 Against The Order Dated Passed By Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac Delhi U/S 250 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. Such Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A) Was Served On The Appellant On 29.03.2023, Thus The Appeal Against The Said Order Was Supposed To Have Been Filed By The Appellant By 28.05.2023, However Though The Appeal Was Instituted On Time Through The Online Mode, Submission Of Appeal In The Offline Mode Got Delayed By 2 Days, As The Appeal Physically Has Been Filed On 30.05.2023 For The Reasons As Explained Below:

delay of 2 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. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Under

KRYA VIKRAYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED DEOLI,DEOLI TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the AO is confirmed

Bench: Him.

condone the delay of 152 days in filing the appeal before us. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income declaring total income at Rs. NIL was filed electronically on 30.10.2017 vide acknowledgement No. 269409091301017 which was processed u/s 143(1) by the CPC. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through manual selection criteria

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI,SH 8A, VILLAGE DAULATPURA, POST KATRATHAL, SIKAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, SIKAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 149/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Sushila Devi SH 8A, Village Daulapura Post Katrathal, Sikar cuke Vs. ACIT, Circle, Sikar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGVPD 6837 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of H

260/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271B was initiated for the reason that due date of filing the audit report was 07.11.2017 but auditor has signed & verified the audit report on 08.11.2017. 2. In course of penalty proceedings assessee explained that it got the accounts audited and obtained tax audit report on 07.11.2017 but due to some technical glitches it was submitted

RAM BABU JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Him. 2.1 At The Outset Of Hearing, The Bench Observed That There Is Delay Of 151 Days In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Filed Application For Seeking Condonation Of Delay, With Following Prayers & The Assessee To This Effect Also Filed An Affidavit Also :-

section 147/144 of the Act by ITO, Ward-1(4), Jaipur [ for short AO] before him. 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 151 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed application for seeking condonation of delay, with following prayers

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

condonation of delay, if required. Hence the action of the learned CIT(A) was illegal, invalid and against the principles of natural justice. Ground No. 2- The learned AO was not justified in imposing the penalty of rupee 6,29,730 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A.O.- Show cause notice dated 20.03.1997 was issued but no reply

DIVYA AGROFOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT,ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA RAJASTHAN

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

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

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, [for short Act ] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [ for short AO ]. 2 Divya Agrofood Product Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-Faceless grossly erred in passing the ex-parte order. 2. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in reopening