M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after referred to as Act ] by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1 & 2, Jaipur [ Here in after referred 2 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur to as ld. PCIT ] dated 31-03-2021& 30-03-2021 for the assessment year

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after referred to as Act ] by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1 & 2, Jaipur [ Here in after referred 2 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur to as ld. PCIT ] dated 31-03-2021& 30-03-2021 for the assessment year

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

1,30,560/-: The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in\nconfirming the charging interest made by the AO u/s 234A, 234B of the\nAct. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such\ninterest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law\nand facts, kindly be deleted

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. On the facts and circumstances of Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as in facts in not allowing the condonation of delay in filing appeal, even when the assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay duly as per law specifying the reasons of delay. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

delay of\n18 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned, having\nregard to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCollector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471\n(SC).\n5.\nAppeal has also been argued on merits. Assessee-appellant\nhas raised following grounds: -\n\"1.\nThat order of Learned

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 of the Act dated 12.03.2024 for the assessment year

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)

1) was issued from the NFAC, New-Delhi Dated 16.12.2022 for making fresh assessment for relevant year and thereafter appellant contacted new counsel at Jaipur,who updated the appellant regarding the same. 6. That the delay in filing the form 36 is bona fide & unintentional and backed by reasonable cause. It is therefore, humbly prayed to kindly condone the delay

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

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), 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 (Accountant Member)

delay of 14 days is condoned. 4 JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY VS CIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 4.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, brief facts of the case are the assessee society is registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1958 w.e.f. 07.09.1999 (PB 22) with the main objective of imparting education (PB 23-29). It is registered

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

delay of 6days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

delay of 6days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

delay of 6days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

delay of 6days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

delay of 6days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

delay of 6days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

delay of 6days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1