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 :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

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 :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

condoned. 3 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Nandi International and engaged in import and trading of Glass Chaton, Glass beads and silver jewellery. The assessee filed his return of income on 27/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 9,01,270/-. The case

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several 4 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

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

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

1) dated 13/6/23\n77-79\nIntimation\n80\nNotice u/s 142(1) dated 17/10/23\n81-84\nShow cause notice dated 18/12/23\n85\nShow cause notice dated 31/01/24\n86-89\nShow cause notice dated 01/02/24\n90-94\nNotice u/s 142(1) dated 14/02/24\n95-97\n2018-19 Replies of the assessee\nReply dated 01-02-24\n98-100\nReply dated

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

delay of 23 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. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 3. “1

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

delay of 10 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. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in fact the assessee is at risk. 4. The brief facts of the case in ITA No. 460/JPR/2024, as culled out from the records are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

condonation of delay in filling appeal, which is against the principal of natural justice and is illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(Appeal) has grosslyerred in not considering the fact that the assessment order was never served upon the assessee appellant and it came

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

condonation of delay in filling appeal, which is against the principal of natural justice and is illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(Appeal) has grosslyerred in not considering the fact that the assessment order was never served upon the assessee appellant and it came

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per\ncent of such income and no deduction shall be allowed under any other\nclause of this section: Provided that no deduction shall be allowed from the dividend\nincome, or income in respect of units of a Mutual Fund specified under\nclause (23D) of section 10 or income in respect

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, 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)

delay of 14 days is condoned. 4 JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY VS CIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 4.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, brief facts of the case are the assessee society is registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1958 w.e.f. 07.09.1999 (PB 22) with the main objective of imparting education (PB 23-29). It is registered

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in treating the assessee as representative assessee while it should be treated as AOP, because it has derived income which

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

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

KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: Him. 2

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97-Rectification application was rejected by AO-CIT(A) upheld order of AO-Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)-Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

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

56,070/- (i.e. Rs. 32,76,000/ cost of new house and Rs. 1,63,830/- being registry charges). The disallowance so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT (A), being contrary to the provisions of law and the established facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. Registry charges not included

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee company has submitted an application praying for raising the following additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “That