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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

45 and 254, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit(Condonation of delay) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order upholding capital gain of certain amount to be bogus - Assessee filed appeal before Tribunal after delay of 2208 days - Assessee filed an application to condone delay along with affidavit explaining cause for delay that order passed

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

4 SCC 363 AIR 2009 SC\n1927 13 | 22 case cannot be considered while dealing with the application\nfor condonation of delay in filing the appeal.\n23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer8, this Court\nheld that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously\nbased upon the facts and circumstances of each case

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

4 SCC 363 AIR 2009 SC\n1927 13 | 22 case cannot be considered while dealing with the application\nfor condonation of delay in filing the appeal.\n23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer8, this Court\nheld that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously\nbased upon the facts and circumstances of each case

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 is a matter of judicial discretion; and where misrepresentation exists, the same cannot be exercised

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 is a matter of judicial discretion; and where misrepresentation exists, the same cannot be exercised

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 is a matter of judicial discretion; and where misrepresentation exists, the same cannot be exercised

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 is a matter of judicial discretion; and where misrepresentation exists, the same cannot be exercised

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)

4 Jagdish Prashad Panchal vs.ITO In this regard, the appeal memo is not accompanied with any petition seeking condonation of delay in preferring the impugned appeal and the appellant has not stated any reason for Condonation of Delay in filing of the appeal. Adjudication on Condonation of Delay: The appellant has stated in form 35 that for the assessment order

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

SHRI NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “ 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio and therefore deserves to be quashed

VIDYA SAMITI ARYA SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1, 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)

45 days. The reason for such delay is on account of non passing of any order on our application filed 154 and there is no mala fide intention on our part. 3. It is therefore humbly prayed that the delay so caused may kindly be allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur bench, Jaipur and appeal may please be admitted

VIDYA SAMITI ARYA SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1, 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)

45 days. The reason for such delay is on account of non passing of any order on our application filed 154 and there is no mala fide intention on our part. 3. It is therefore humbly prayed that the delay so caused may kindly be allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur bench, Jaipur and appeal may please be admitted

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 is a matter of judicial discretion; and where\nmisrepresentation exists, the same cannot

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)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

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

4 days. It is in such circumstances that the Supreme\nCourt expressed the view that each days delay is not required to\nbe explained and a pragmatic approach is required to be taken.\n11. In the decision of this court in the case of Cenzer Industries\nLtd. (supra) reference was made to the above decision of the\nSupreme court

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

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)

4. That I, on behalf of the assessee company, contact Dr. Rakesh Gupta, partner of M/s. RPA, Tax India for filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), NFAC against order passed u/s 143(3) /263 dated 23-03-2023. 7 M/S. MARATHON INDIA LTD VS Pr.CIT-1, JAIPUR 5. That I, on behalf of the assessee company came to know

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

condone the delay of 292 days in filing of appeal. 5. It is observed that during the year under consideration the assessee sold property situated at Village Deoli Arab Road, Tehsil Ladpura, and Kota for Rs. 3.08 Cr. Which was jointly owned by the assessee himself and some Mr. Naveen Kumar in 50:50, meaning thereby the share