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

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 6. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and as per established law and legal precedents, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction in passing the Order dated

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

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

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

condone the delay of 96\ndays in filing the appeals by the assessee in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition\nvs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The fact as culled out from the records is that M/s Shiv

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

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)

condone the delay of 68 days each in filing both the appeals before us. ITA NO. 1114/JPR/2025 AY 2017-18 : 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction activities. The appellant filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 07.11.2017 declaring total income

SHRI PODDAR SEWA SAMITI,FATEHPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

272 & 273/JPR/2025 Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti cuke The CIT( Exemption), Jaipur. Geeta Bhawan Ke Pass, Ward No. 18, Vs. Fatehpur, Sikar. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABOAS5443H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date

SHRI PODDAR SEWA SAMITI, FATEHPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

272 & 273/JPR/2025 Shri Poddar Sewa Samiti cuke The CIT( Exemption), Jaipur. Geeta Bhawan Ke Pass, Ward No. 18, Vs. Fatehpur, Sikar. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABOAS5443H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

condonation of delay for the AY 2018-19 is\nthe same as in AY 2017-18, except the quantum of addition and date of assessment\norder passed by the AO. Therefore, for the sake of repetition, the same are not\nbeing reproduced.\n4.\nConsidering the reasons mentioned in the said applications accompanied by\nAffidavits of the assessee, we feel that

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay of 58 days in filing the\nappeal before us.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee the assessee is a\ncompany engaged in hotel business. The assessee filed its return of\nincome on 30.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs. (-) 15,24,86,880/-. A search\nwas conducted on 30.10.2014 in the case

YASH DAGA ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-I, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SH. NARENDRA KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay and admit the appeal on merits of the case for hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. In ground no.1, the appellant has challenged that the impugned ex- parte order dated 25.03.2023 was passed against the principles of natural justice as the order is passed without affording opportunity of being heard and without

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

condonation of delay\nhas been filed by the assessee wherein it has been specifically submitted that the\ndelay was because of the order was not received proper time.The applicationreads\nas under :-\n\"Along with the order of CIT(A), Alwar, as attached in our enclosures to the appeal filed\nbefore Hon'ble Jaipur Benches of ITAT, also contains the copy

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable