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)

condone the delay of 220 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

KAMAL SINGH,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WD 1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

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

condonation of delay in filing of Appeal against the order passed by CIT (Appeals)-NFAC under section 250(6) of the Act dated 05/03/2024(ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062010554(1) Hon'ble Sir, The Applicant most respectfully beg, pray and humbly submits as under: Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC uploaded notices

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

282 ITR 553). 33. It is further submitted that the onus in relation to section 69/69B lies on the Revenue to show that the payments were made outside the books. In Bafakyh Export House vs. ITO (1995) 53TTJ (Coch-Trib) 293, it is held that there is a material difference on the question of onus between section 68 and section

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)

282 ITR 553). 33. It is further submitted that the onus in relation to section 69/69B lies on the Revenue to show that the payments were made outside the books. In Bafakyh Export House vs. ITO (1995) 53TTJ (Coch-Trib) 293, it is held that there is a material difference on the question of onus between section 68 and section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

282 ITR 553). 33. It is further submitted that the onus in relation to section 69/69B lies on the Revenue to show that the payments were made outside the books. In Bafakyh Export House vs. ITO (1995) 53TTJ (Coch-Trib) 293, it is held that there is a material difference on the question of onus between section 68 and section

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

condonation of delay, if required. Hence the action of the learned CIT(A) was illegal, invalid and against the principles of natural justice. Ground No. 2- The learned AO was not justified in imposing the penalty of rupee 6,29,730 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A.O.- Show cause notice dated 20.03.1997 was issued but no reply

PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

delay of 462 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS VS PCIT, UDIAPUR Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 3.1 Now we take up the 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

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

DINESH KUMAR CHAURASIA, TONK vs. PCIT CENTRAL, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

delay of three days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned 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 is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

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)

condoning the delay, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No. 1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for discussions, and on this aspect of the matter ld. DR has not raised any West Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO objection. Accepting this consensus, we proceed

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

BHANWARI DEVI,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the present appeal. Ground nos. 1 to 5 are inter-linked relates to confirming the action of the AO for issuing notice under section 148 and also confirming addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made by the AO. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a lady

BHANWARI DEVI,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

condone the delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal. Ground nos. 1 & 2 are inter-linked relates to confirming the action of the AO of passing order u/s 271(1)(b) without serving notice and providing opportunity to the assessee and also confirming penalty of Rs. 40,000/- made by the AO. 4. The brief facts

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several 4 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

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