DUNGAR SINGH MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or 3. withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19) 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

section 143(3) & 147 r.w.s 144B of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short \"Act\"] passed by the DCIT, Circle – 2,\nKota for one year and for two year by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax\nDepartment [ for short AO].\n2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos.1007 to\n1009/JP/2025 for A.Ys

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

section 143(3) & 147 r.w.s 144B of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short \"Act\"] passed by the DCIT, Circle – 2,\nKota for one year and for two year by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax\nDepartment [ for short AO].\n2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos.1007 to\n1009/JP/2025 for A.Ys

M.S. MODI AND SONS ,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, DELHI

270A of the Act. To my mind these reasons are absolutely casual in nature and no details of any nature have been filed by the assessee. This application has been moved in a very casual and cavalier manner without mentioning any sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay. Hence, it is clear that the assessee is not interested in pursuing

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

270A of the Income Tax Act. 3. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction

SHRI NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “ 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio and therefore deserves to be quashed

DUNGAR SINGH MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

270A of the Income Tax Act. That the appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before hearing of this appeal. Grounds of Appeal ITA No. 562/JPR/2025 1 That both the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Income

MGG INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

270A of the Act amounting to ₹1,96,362/-. 2 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application is received on record on the repeated dates of hearings. However, considering the issue delay of 211 days in filing appeal and the grounds of appeal being pertaining to natural justice

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.”

condone the delay of 40 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 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal

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

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned, having regard to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC). 5. Appeal has also been argued on merits. Assessee-appellant has raised following grounds: - "1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.\r\nA claim for deduction under section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a\r\nreturn filed beyond the time permitted under the Act, ignores the perspective that\r\nsees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in a valid return pre-\r\ncondition

JAMBO CREDIT AND THRIFT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO-6(1),, JAIPUR

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 12.06.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, As Thereby The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Has Been Dismissed.

condone the delay in filing of the appeal. We order accordingly. However, the applicant is burdened with costs of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited in “Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund”. 5 Jambo Credit and Thrift Co-operative Society Ltd. Jaipur. Arguments have also been advanced in the appeal, on merits, today itself by both the sides. We proceed

PRIME ROSE CITY SCHOOL SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR

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

270A and 271AAC.’’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has not allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’In the light of above facts of the case at Point No. (i) to (xii), in absence of an application seeking proper condonation of delay in filing of this appeal, the non- submission

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 44AB. The AO failed to point out any specific defects in the books of accounts that would warrant rejection u/s 145(3). The rejection was mechanical and arbitrary without proper application of mind. 2. The ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the arbitrary estimation of income at 8% of turnover and making addition

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

270A, 271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not\nsustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above\ngrounds of appeal at the time of hearing.\"\n3.\nWe find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days\neach