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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 69C of the Act. 6 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: 5.2 Having gone through the assessee’s aforesaid application

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

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

Section 147/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 14.12.2016. 2 Vishnu Pareek vs. CIT(A) 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. CIT(A) seriously erred in facts and law in dismissing the appeal on account of delay of 162 days in filing of appeal before him against

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

section 201(1) and 201(1A) before the ld. CIT (A). Since there was a delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT (A), the appeals of the assessee were dismissed as not maintainable in limine by the ld. CIT (A). The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has explained the delay in filing

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

section 206AA whereas the same was brought to statute book by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01- 04-2010. The action of the ld.AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the demand being illegal. The assessee craves its right to ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ 3 DRM Vs ACIT add, amend

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

section 206AA whereas the same was brought to statute book by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01- 04-2010. The action of the ld.AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the demand being illegal. The assessee craves its right to ITA 1464 & 1467/JP/2018_ 3 DRM Vs ACIT add, amend

DEV GROUP,ALWAR vs. ITO,WARD BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: Him.

section of the I.T. Act, 1961-Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year1996-97-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

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 2. Sant Kabir Mahasabha Versus The CIT (Exemption) Chandigarh (ITA No. 84/CHD/2023) (ITAT, Chandigarh) Merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

96 8 HARIRAM HOSPITAL, ALWAR VS PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR The principles that emanate from the above said decisions are that, in the matter of condonation of delay in filing appeals beyond the limitation period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided the litigant is able to demonstrate that there was "sufficient cause" in preferring appeal beyond the limitation

MGG INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

96,362/-. 2 MGG Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application is received on record on the repeated dates of hearings. However, considering the issue delay of 211 days in filing appeal and the grounds of appeal being pertaining to natural justice, it is decided to hear

SMT. PRIYANKA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 214/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2009-10 Smt. Priyanka Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. D/O- Late Sh. Tulsi Das Agarwal, Ward-1(5), 2000, Khejaro Ka Rasta, Third Jaipur Crossing Shop, Topkhana, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aikpa 7142 B 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 : 06/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 26/06/2019 For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

96,144/- as against the return income of Rs.1,78250/- by making the adition on account of LTCG of Rs.5,17,894/- and raised the demand. Against which the assessee had filed an appeal before the Id. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur. The Id. CIT(A)-Jaipur has passed the order of appeal on dt. 26.06.2019, which was served

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 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice- that being the life-purpose

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

MANCAN FOUNDATION,UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), 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. 1092/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :.................. Cuke Mancan Foundation, C.I.T.(Exemption) Vs. Udaipur. Jaipur. C/O-Shah Patni & Co. Chartered Accountants, S.B. One, Babu Nagar, Jln Marg, Jaipur- 302015. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaftm 7600 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Pramod Patni (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (In Short, The Cit(E)) Dated 27/06/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Grossly Erred In Fact As Well As In Law In Rejection The Application For Registration U/S. 12Aa Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant Company:

condone the delay of 09 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for hearing. 7. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed application before the ld. CIT(E) seeking registration U/s 12AA of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(E) after considering the case of the assessee passed order U/s 12AA

LATE. SHRI SATPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

condone the delay of 91 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee run business in the name and style of M/s Satnam Motor, a proprietary concern. He e-filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on 23.09.2013 declaring total income

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

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, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SHRI GANPATI DEVELOPERS, KOTA

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1348/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Shri Ganpati Developers, Vs. Circle-1, C-150, Road No. 5, I.P.I.A., Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 8967 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

96 lacs in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the document seized from the premises of the assessee. We find that the seized document does not have any signature of the assessee. However, it is a computer print which has not been used / maintained / operated by the assessee. On perusing the said seized document, it is clear

PANKAJ MANI KULSHRESHTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

condone the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 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 was prevented by sufficient cause. 4 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal

OM PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGANER JAIPUR vs. WARD 4(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Him. 2

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward 4(3), Jaipur before him. 2 ITA No. 43/JP/2024 Om Prakash Sharma vs. ITO The present is for the following grounds: - "1. The A.O. erred in not following the principles of natural justice and in failing to provide adequate and meaningful opportunity and ignoring the evidence on record, without