NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay had to be condoned by Commissioner (Appeals) - Held, yes - Whether Commissioner (Appeals) was to be directed to consider assessee's appeal on merits - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9] [Matter remanded] Shilpaben Nileshbhai Gami vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 169 taxmann.com 595 (Gujarat High Court)[19-11-2024] Section 68, read with section 45

M.S. MODI AND SONS ,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to\ncosts

Section 3 of the Limitation Act;\n(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if\nsufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is\ndiscretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is\nestablished for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay,\nnegligence and want of due diligence

A BLISS OF CREATOR SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 'Sufficient cause” is a condition\nprecedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. After\nhaving gone through different citations of different forums as well as courts, the\nBench has noticed that the Court have time and again held that when mandatory\nprovision is not complied with and that delay

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 :

45 to 50). 5. Application to Present Case • The assessee has not discharged the burden of showing any “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of delay

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 :

45 to 50). 5. Application to Present Case • The assessee has not discharged the burden of showing any “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of delay

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 :

45 to 50). 5. Application to Present Case • The assessee has not discharged the burden of showing any “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of delay

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 :

45 to 50). 5. Application to Present Case • The assessee has not discharged the burden of showing any “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. • On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High Court’s order. • Condonation of delay

JAGDISH PRASHAD PANCHAL,JHALAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHALAWAR

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

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

condonation of delay should have been the correct path in justice delivery system, instead of the approach adopted herein. GROUND NO 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of Rs. 45,20,000/- under section

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)

section 271(1)(c) from the department was issued. Thereafter, the assessee appointed a Chartered Accountant and filed an instant appeal which was delayed on that account . Since the delay caused was not due to any neglect but due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control, he filed an application for condoning the delay in filing instant appeal. Held

RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963", "Rule 45 of Income Tax Rules 1962" ], "issues": "The primary issue was whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) should be dismissed due to a significant delay in filing, or if the delay could be condoned

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

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

45 to 50).\n5. Application to Present Case\n• The assessee has not discharged the burden of showing any “sufficient\ncause\" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.\n• On the contrary, the assessee has attempted to misrepresent the High\nCourt's order.\n• Condonation of delay

M/S MARATHON INDIA LTD.,RAJASTHAN vs. SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, PCIT-1, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

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

Section 263 of the Act, the assessee had challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A) by filing the first appeal on 14-04-2023 thereby taking all the pleas available to him and the said appeal is still pending for adjudication on merits before the ld. CIT(A). Interestingly, after two days of filing of appeal before

GO GRAM ECO FOUNDATION,GOVINDGARH TEHSIL CHOMU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that ld. CIT(Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval 5 Go Gram Eco Foundation vs. CIT(E) under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income

SMT. RUKSANA,JHALAWAR vs. ITO, WARD, JHALAWAR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 192/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/H Of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bjeps 1293 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kota Dated 21/09/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 15.03.2014 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Being Debatable Issue & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2.1 Rs.13,45,442/-: The Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3). The Provision So Invoked By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

section 145(3). The provision so invoked by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 2 ITA 192/JP/2020 _ Smt. Ruksana Vs ITO 2.2 Alternatively and without prejudice the ld. CIT(A) further erred

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

condone the delay of 391 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR\n471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.\n3.1 During the course of hearing, the Id. AR of the assessee

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

condone the delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 9. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from Natani Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. as salary being Director of the company, house property and interest also. Return of income was electronically filed on 16/12/2015 declaring total income

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

condone the delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 9. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from Natani Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. as salary being Director of the company, house property and interest also. Return of income was electronically filed on 16/12/2015 declaring total income

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

condonation of delay and affidavit. The same may kindly be allowed. The Cross objections of the assessee are as under: 1. ‘Alternatively, the learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F Rs 94,39,201/- and the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deciding alternate Ground No.4 of the assessee which was before