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\npurposes

8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of\nthe submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the order dated 19-10-2022\npassed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, is set aside and the delay in filing the\nappeal is condoned. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, which shall

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

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

8 as under:\n14. 7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the following decisions, in regard to the\ncondonation of delay:\n15.\n(i) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) (7) SCC 123],\nwherein, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:\n16.\n17. \"The primary function of a court is to adjudicate

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

8] [In favour of assessee]\"\ng. THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F' incase of Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Circle -48 (1), New Delhi v.\nRaj Jain [2013] 38 taxmann.com 133 (Delhi - Trib.) held\nthat \"Section 6, read with section 5 of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 Residential Status [Individual] - Assessment year\n2006-07 - Assessee filed its return of 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(2) r.w.s.270A(8) of the Act, on account of interest on Income Tax Refund. Penalty proceedings under section 271A of the Act were initiated, and thus Penalty of Rs. 1,96,362/- was imposed under section 271A of the Act on 28/01/2022 on account of under reporting of income. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income

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

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

delay and the same is condoned.\n8. The brief facts as culled out from the records are that asessee is a company and derives income from retail and wholesale sale of woods, timber, laminates and adhesives and allied activities. A search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) & 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] passed by the DCIT, Circle – 2, Kota for one year and for two year by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department [ for short AO]. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 1007 to 1009/JP/2025 for A.Ys

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

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

8. On facts and in the circumstance of the case the Id. CIT(A)-NFAC has grossly erred in sustaining the penalties proceedings initiated by Ld. AO u/s 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

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)

270A, 271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not sustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. We find that both these appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by 68 days each

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

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

MOHAN LAL YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD -1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1223/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Mohan Lal Yadav Vs. The ITO C/o Shri R.S. Poonia, CA Ward 1(1) D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg Jaipur Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: ARMPY 7388Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Ms. Payal Jhorar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ga

8. Then, I engaged a new counsel and he filed the appeal accordingly before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 02.09.2025 against the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC with delay of 94 days. 9. That the delay of 94 days was due to unaware about the adverse ex- parte order dated 25.03.2025. 10. That

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 44AB.\nThe AO failed to point out any specific defects in the books of accounts that\nwould warrant rejection u/s 145(3). The rejection was mechanical and arbitrary\nwithout proper application of mind.\n2. The ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the arbitrary estimation\nof income at 8% of turnover and making addition

SH. KRISHNA KUMAR PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270A of IT Act, I forwarded the same to CA Satyanarayan Prajapat who after browsing my e- portal informed me of passing the appellate order on 22.03.2024. 7. That when I approached CA P.C. Parwal of M/s.Kalani & Co., Jaipur for filing the appeal, he suggested me to file the appeal before Hon’ble ITAT along with a request to condone