SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

condonation the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). D. Rebuttal and factual clarification on the Arguments of the Ld. DR taken during hearing and submission on merits of the case 18. The Ld. DR during the hearing has alleged misrepresentation of the facts by the Appellant, which is specifically denied. The Ld. DR has rather misinterpreted

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

condonation the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). D. Rebuttal and factual clarification on the Arguments of the Ld. DR taken during hearing and submission on merits of the case 18. The Ld. DR during the hearing has alleged misrepresentation of the facts by the Appellant, which is specifically denied. The Ld. DR has rather misinterpreted

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

condonation the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). D. Rebuttal and factual clarification on the Arguments of the Ld. DR taken during hearing and submission on merits of the case 18. The Ld. DR during the hearing has alleged misrepresentation of the facts by the Appellant, which is specifically denied. The Ld. DR has rather misinterpreted

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

condonation the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). D. Rebuttal and factual clarification on the Arguments of the Ld. DR taken during hearing and submission on merits of the case 18. The Ld. DR during the hearing has alleged misrepresentation of the facts by the Appellant, which is specifically denied. The Ld. DR has rather misinterpreted

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoning the delay. The individual grounds of appeal are discussed here under- Grounds of Appeal 1. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliance of opportunity granted by him whereas the appeal required

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

41 (SC) Dolphin Metal India Ltd. v. ITO, [2021] 127 taxmann.com 244/280 Taxman 21/431 ITR 666 (Gujarat) Govt. Telecommunications Employees Co-op Society Ltd. v. ITO [2019] 111 taxmann.com 28/268 Taxman 17 (Madras) 12. The legal reasoning given in the abovementioned judicial pronouncements signifies the fact that legislation has mandated in terms with section 250(4) & (6) that

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

41 (SC) Dolphin Metal India Ltd. v. ITO, [2021] 127 taxmann.com 244/280 Taxman 21/431 ITR 666 (Gujarat) Govt. Telecommunications Employees Co-op Society Ltd. v. ITO [2019] 111 taxmann.com 28/268 Taxman 17 (Madras) 12. The legal reasoning given in the abovementioned judicial pronouncements signifies the fact that legislation has mandated in terms with section 250(4) & (6) that

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

condonation the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.\nCIT(A).\nD. Rebuttal and factual clarification on the Arguments of the Ld. DR taken\nduring hearing and submission on merits of the case\n18. The Ld. DR during the hearing has alleged misrepresentation of the facts\nby the Appellant, which is specifically denied. The Ld. DR has rather\nmisinterpreted

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY,ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B before the Appropriate Authorities and has totally overlooked the observations of the various Higher Courts that even if Form No. 10B is filed at a later stage before the A.O. or before the Appellate Authorities, it would be sufficient compliance with requirements of section

SITA RAM SAINI,CHOMU, JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay should receive a liberal construction as to advance the substantial Justice.. 3. Now coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has 5 Sh. Sita Ram Saini vs. ITO challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), NFAC with

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

41 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers:\nApplication for condonation of delay u/s 253(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with section

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

condone the delay.\n7. The fact as culled out from the records is that information\nwas received from DDIT(Inv.)-III, Jaipur vide letter No. 3303 dated\n22.03.2019 that cash deposits of Rs. 3,80,000/- in State Bank of\nIndia had been taken place in his account.\nThe assessee had filed his ITR declaring total income

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay

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

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay

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

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay

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.”

41, Chitransh Bhawan, Nirankar Colony, Vs. Ward-3(5), Jaipur. Gokulpura, Jhotwara, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKHPK4494P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vikash Yadav, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 18/02/2025

RASHMI JAIN,IMLIWALA PHATAK, JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2) JAIPUR, WARD 6 (2) JAIPUR

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

Bench: Then Cit(A)-2, Jaipur With In 2 Smt. Rashmi Jain Vs Ito,Ward 6(2), Jaipur Prescribed Limitation U/S 249(2) Of The I.T. Act I.E. 30 Days From The Service Of The Impugned Assessment Order (Ii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Reproducing The Reason For Delay By The Appellant Like ‘’Ipse Dixit’’ (Iii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Appears Erred In Applying Judicial Precedent For Dismissing The Appeal While The Precedents Are Supporting To The Appellant.

41(1) of I.T. Act 2.1 Apropos above grounds of appeal of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 5. Decision:- (i) I have considered the submission of the assesse and given a careful thought. Before proceeding on to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

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

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

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed