M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay, an Affidavit of Shri Phool Chand Chaudhary, Executive Director 3 M/s. Om Shiv Properties Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. of assessee company along with an application dated 28.10.2020 under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed, which reads as under :- Application U/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. 1. That the appellant is submitting appeal against order passed

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay in filing the appeal which is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has moved a prayer for admission of additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in completing

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay in filing the appeal which is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has moved a prayer for admission of additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in completing

NEERAJ SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay in filing the appeal which is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has moved a prayer for admission of additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in completing

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 101\ndays in filing the appeal by the assessee. To support our view, we\nsupport on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCollector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471\n(SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause and therefore,\nwe admit this appeal.\n6. Succinctly

SURBHI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

section 40A(3). 6. Under the fact and circumstances of the case to the Ld. AO was not justified in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C, 7. That the appellant reserved his right to add, amend, or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date of appeal hearing.” 3 Surbhi Agarwal vs. ITO 3. At the outset

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

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

condone the delay of 83 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of distribution of milk of Jaipur dairy to the milk booths. He had filed his ITR for the relevant year, declaring total

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ld.AO, without

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ld.AO, without

ITO, JAIPUR vs. SHYAM APPARELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

section 40A(3) of the Act which by its very nature is not absolute; and genuine / bona fide transactions do not call for disallowance under the said provision, particularly when it has neither been doubted by the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT(A). Thus the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.” 2. Both

SHYAM APPARELS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

section 40A(3) of the Act which by its very nature is not absolute; and genuine / bona fide transactions do not call for disallowance under the said provision, particularly when it has neither been doubted by the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT(A). Thus the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.” 2. Both

S R AUTOMOBILES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

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

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

condone the delay of 535 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. The brief facts of the case are that the return declaring income

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

delay and the same is condoned. 8. 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

BARAN KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,BARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Your Honour.

condone the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousands). ITA 723/JP/2018_ 3 Baran Kendriya Sahakari Bank Vs ACIT 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) was not justified in holding

DIGAMBER SINGH & SONS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KUMHER vs. ITO, WD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 16 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 and therefore, we admit this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee

MODERN MACHINERY STORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Was Dismissed On Account Of Delay. He

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal at the threshold level and also erred in dismissing the same thus depriving the assessee from the justice. 2. That the Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in making a disallowance of Rs. 108000.00 within the meaning of section 40a

FINOVA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

delay of 262 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 and therefore, we admit this appeal. 6. The brief facts related

RANJAN SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 143(3)/147 and 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus raising following grounds of appeals in the above mentioned appeals; SHRI RANJAN SHARMA VS ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR ITA NO.238/JPR/2025 – A.Y. 2010-11 ‘’1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts