DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSADY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDSINCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

condonation of delay had not been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, considering the limitation for passing the penalty order, the Jt Commissioner of Income Tax imposed the penalty. 5.4. So far as the claim of the appellant regarding contravention of provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

condonation of delay had not been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, considering the limitation for passing the penalty order, the Jt Commissioner of Income Tax imposed the penalty. 5.4. So far as the claim of the appellant regarding contravention of provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

condonation of delay had not been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, considering the limitation for passing the penalty order, the Jt Commissioner of Income Tax imposed the penalty. 5.4. So far as the claim of the appellant regarding contravention of provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

condonation of delay had not been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, considering the limitation for passing the penalty order, the Jt Commissioner of Income Tax imposed the penalty. 5.4. So far as the claim of the appellant regarding contravention of provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

condonation of delay had not been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, considering the limitation for passing the penalty order, the Jt Commissioner of Income Tax imposed the penalty. 5.4. So far as the claim of the appellant regarding contravention of provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

condonation of delay had not been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, considering the limitation for passing the penalty order, the Jt Commissioner of Income Tax imposed the penalty. 5.4. So far as the claim of the appellant regarding contravention of provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDSINCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

condonation of delay had not been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, considering the limitation for passing the penalty order, the Jt Commissioner of Income Tax imposed the penalty. 5.4. So far as the claim of the appellant regarding contravention of provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

condonation of delay had not been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, considering the limitation for passing the penalty order, the Jt Commissioner of Income Tax imposed the penalty. 5.4. So far as the claim of the appellant regarding contravention of provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

condonation of delay had not been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, considering the limitation for passing the penalty order, the Jt Commissioner of Income Tax imposed the penalty. 5.4. So far as the claim of the appellant regarding contravention of provision of Section 275

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

condonation of delay had not been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Hence, considering the limitation for passing the penalty order, the Jt Commissioner of Income Tax imposed the penalty. 5.4. So far as the claim of the appellant regarding contravention of provision of Section 275

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

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

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

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

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried