JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

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 :

x A party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. [Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540]. An appellant

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 :

x A party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. [Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540]. An appellant

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 :

x A party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. [Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540]. An appellant

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 :

x A party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. [Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540]. An appellant

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

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

x 12000) and she has paid cash\nas 'On money' as ascertained from various whatsapp chats and images. At\nS. No. 21 on Page-1 of the list is having entry in the name of \"Nitin Dusad\"\nand on the left side the rate of flat 9000 + 3000 is recorded. However, the\nregistry of the said flat has been ultimately

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

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

delay of 58 days filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,68,02,540/-. The assessee company claimed deduction

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT LTD.,MANSAROVAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income For The Assessment Year.

56 days between filling of tax audit report and filling of ITR Form No.6 (04.10.2017 to 29.11.2017) ignoring the applicable provision u/s 43B. 4. That the Appellant assessee craves for a leave to add, alter and amend any Grounds of appeal at the time of appellate hearing.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

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

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

x) of clause (24) of section 2 which is chargeable to income-tax under\nthe head \"Income from other sources\", deductions, so far as may be, in\naccordance with the provisions of clause (va) of sub-section (1)\nof section 36; (ii) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii)\nand (iii) of sub-section

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

condone the delay of 96\ndays in filing the appeals by the assessee in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition\nvs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The fact as culled out from the records is that M/s Shiv

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.

x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE 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

M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,HURU vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 247 To 250/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S Oriental Bank Of Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, Tds-3, Post Box No. 56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. Tan No. Jpro01610A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Bench All These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur All Dated 08/01/2019 For The A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively.

x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 247 to 250/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2016-17 M/s Oriental Bank of cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, TDS-3, Post Box No. 56

M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,HURU vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 247 To 250/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S Oriental Bank Of Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, Tds-3, Post Box No. 56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. Tan No. Jpro01610A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Bench All These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur All Dated 08/01/2019 For The A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively.

x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 247 to 250/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2016-17 M/s Oriental Bank of cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, TDS-3, Post Box No. 56

M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,HURU vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 247 To 250/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S Oriental Bank Of Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, Tds-3, Post Box No. 56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. Tan No. Jpro01610A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Bench All These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur All Dated 08/01/2019 For The A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively.

x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 247 to 250/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2016-17 M/s Oriental Bank of cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, TDS-3, Post Box No. 56

M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,HURU vs. ITO, TDS-3, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 247 To 250/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S Oriental Bank Of Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, Tds-3, Post Box No. 56, Sardarsahar, Jaipur. Churu. Tan No. Jpro01610A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Bench All These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur All Dated 08/01/2019 For The A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2016-17 Respectively.

x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 247 to 250/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2016-17 M/s Oriental Bank of cuke I.T.O., Vs. Commerce, TDS-3, Post Box No. 56

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

x) No data confirming to the notings in the Excel sheets could be found from the seized computer hard disks. It is clearly established that the Excel sheets were not prepared by the assessee. (xi) In terms of section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, computerized information is within the realm of hearsay evidence and lacks source of information. Therefore