RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, we note that the prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of 636 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 636 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

condone the delay of 103 days in filing the\npresent appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit.\n5.\nSuccinctly, the facts as culled out from the records is that return\ndeclaring an income of Rs.2,80,750/- was e-filed by the assessee on\n29.09.2010 and assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed on\n20.03.2013

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is now adjudicated on merit. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that a survey action 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 28-08-2018 at business premises of the assessee firm. The assessee filed its original return of income

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

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been

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

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

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

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)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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