TANUJ JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-7(2),JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. \"Sufficient cause\" is a condition\nprecedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. After\nhaving gone through different citations of different forums as well as courts, the\nBench has noticed that the Court have time and again held that when mandatory\nprovision is not complied with and that delay

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263, 264 (Madras)]. 5.5 In this regard, it will be relevant to examine how the Courts have dealt with similar cases. A reference may be made to decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Madhu Dadha vs. ACIT reported 317 ITR 458 (Mad); (2010) 186 Taxmann 8 (Madras). In this case, there was delay

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

263 on dated 29.02.2024 (hereinafter referred as \"impugned\norder\"), Accordingly, the appeal was to be filed on/before dt.\n28.04.2024 however, the same has been filed on dated 29.07.2024.\nThus, the appeal was filed with a delay of 92 days.\n2.1 Reasonable Cause Existed: With regard to the delay, it is humbly\nsubmitted that there did exist a reasonable cause

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

section 5 of Limitation Act in filing of appeal Hon'ble Sir(s), The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of Appeal for the following reason: 1. That the Id. PCIT (Central), Jaipur passed his order on 17.03.2021 which was served upon the assessee appellant applicant 20.03.2021. 2. That due to COVID

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

section 5 of Limitation Act in filing of appeal\nHon'ble Sir(s),\nThe humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay of 39 days in the filling of Appeal for the following reason:\n1. That the Id. PCIT issued two notices u/s. 263

MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 of the Act. There was no malafide of deliberate delay in filling the present appeal and when the assessee came to know about the absolute right of filling an appeal against the order of the PCIT they moved this present appeal with the prayer for condonation

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay of 41 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs.\nMst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause in bringing the present appeal with\ndelay and the same is condoned

M/S MARATHON INDIA LTD.,RAJASTHAN vs. SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, PCIT-1, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. After having gone through different citations of different forums as well as courts, we have noticed that the Court have time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay

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

condonation of delay.” 4 M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 2.2 Based on the stated facts in the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee it is noted as even confirmed by the registry that this present appeal is delayed by 932 days delay and if the delay of covid period for 619 days is deducted than the delay

BHARTESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

263 of the Act, which in turn arises from the order passed by the ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur passed under Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 06.06.2019. 2 Bhartesh Jain vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur 2. At outset the ld. AR of the assessee fairly admitted that the appeal is delayed

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

263 of the Act is contrary to provision of law and also to be challenged before the Hon’ble ITAT Bench as such facts had been communicated to me by authorized representative through mail and also informed that to file appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal, along with my affidavit and application for condonation of delay which requires my signature

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)

condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 2. Sant Kabir Mahasabha Versus The CIT (Exemption) Chandigarh (ITA No. 84/CHD/2023) (ITAT, Chandigarh) Merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order

ANAND JHAWAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Jaipur-2 erred in initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts

VIJAY JAIKISHAN MASSAND,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 280/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Jaikishan Massand, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. 480, Shastri Nagar, Dadabari, Circle-2, Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ajopm 0580 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Saurabh Harsh (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kota Dated 21/03/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 263 days. There is also no dispute that under section

DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 270A of the Act which was applicable from 01.04.2017, hence the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144/147 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Appellant prays that the very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the provisions of law and facts. The proceeding so initiated u/s 263 of the Act and the impugned Order dated

M/S. ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD VILLAGE POST-PATAN, TEHSIL-KISHANGARH, DISTRICT-AJMER,KISHANGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for necessary adjudication. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR taken us through the factual background of the case and submitted as under:- “1. The assessee company deals in manufacture & trading of Iron Ingots for past several years. A search at the factory premises of company took place

SHRI VERDHMAN STHANAKVASI JAIN SHRISANGH,KOTA vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

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

condone the delay in filling the appeals by the assessee. 4. Brief facts of this case are that the assesseefiled application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income TaxAct, 1961 was filed by the assesseeonline on 27.12.2022. A letter/notice No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2023- 24/1051873342(1) dated 05.04.2023 was issued at the e-mail/address provided in the application

KARUNA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 2(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

delay is condoned with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the counsel of the assessee to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 15 days of receiving this order and file a copy of the same before the registry. On failure to do so, the registry is directed to bring this fact to our knowledge