SMT. SHAFIKA BEGUM ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-5, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 929/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shafika Begum, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 320/4, H.A.R. Colony, Char Ward 5(5), Darwaja, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ajkpb 6970 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : None (A.O. Report). Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 28/03/2018 For The A.Y. 2009-10, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken:

section 50C. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 33,26,416 against the declared sale consideration of Rs. 12,89,344. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by accepting the sale consideration

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

delay of 18 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. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 The impugned

SHAHNAZ KHAN,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay of 09 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. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

5 of the Limitation\nAct 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters\non 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to\nenable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice-that\nbeing the life-purpose

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

section 50C ignoring the fact that transfer was made vide sale agreement on dated 22.01.2006. 12. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law also ld. Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in modifying the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act to the order passed u/s 147/144 of the Act without giving any opportunity for same

RAM SWAROOP BALAI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 149 days in filing the appeal before us. 5 Ram Swaroop vs. DCIT. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual, filed his original return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 23.06.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 4,69,490/- which was processed under section

BALU RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to costs

Bench: the AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A) because of the reasons that the copies of these documents could not be obtained by the assessee. The ld AR further submitted that these documents are crucial material for just decision of the appeal. On the contrary, the ld. DR strongly contested this application for leading the additional evidences and submitted that the documents now filed record are not public documents and are self styled documents. Therefore, none of these documents are required

section 50C is not justified legal and valid, on the ground of the period of the construction can not be taken as true and correct. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned appellate authority erred in passing the Appellate order dt. 16.11.2023, that the proceeding initiated

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATNI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

5. Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal on record, we find that the assessee has explained the cause of delay as the mother of the assessee was not well and was hospitalized on 28.07.2017. Further, the mother of the assessee died on 05.09.2017. The assessee has produced the medical record of the ailing mother and therefore, the reasons

IDRISH,MATAWAS vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, INCOME TAX

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

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

delay of 05 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. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The impugned

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay of 314 days 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). 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee, along with one other person sold and purchased immovable property in cash

SHRI MATHUR LAL,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay of 91 days in filing the present appeal. 6. Now we decide the appeal on merits. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of indexed cost of improvement to the extent of Rs.6,75,930/- in computing

SARASWATI DEVI,AROGYA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CAD CIRCLE KOTA

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

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

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. SMT. SARASWATI DEVI VS ITO, WARD 2(4), KOTA 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order holding that the assessee had not submitted any written submission in spite of various notices to counter the assessment order and thus

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

Condon the delay in filling of appeal due to non-receipts of assessment order in\ntime and time taken in obtaining copy of Sale Deed from Purchaser & the Humble Appellant is\nsenior Citizen aged 70 Years.\nThat the Learned Assessing Officer grossly eared in initiating the Penalty proceedings u/s\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\nThat

SMT. SHIVANI KHANDELWL,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER

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

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Period Of Limitation. Thus There Was Delay

delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the cases as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in passing ex-parte order. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the cases as well

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeal of the appellant stands partly allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

delay of 125 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 As per the facts of the present case the assessee derived business income from a retail shop in his village and filed his return of income under Section 44 AF of the Income Tax Act. However during the year under consideration, Assessee sold property

SUSHMA SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay condone was justified but mechanically impugned order has been issued and rejected the appeal under section 271(1)(c) I.T. Act. The AO (ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur) has already complied the CIT (AS) order and issued his order on dt. 8-10-2024 as income revised as ‘Nil’. This show there was no conceal of income. 3. That

AMROS ENGINEERING PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(4), JPR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

delay took place in filing the appeal. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the case. 3 AMROS ENGINEERING PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench observed that there