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

VIJAY PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

reassessment order, on-line appeal was filed by me on 20th Oct. 2019 which was delayed by 1012 days which is requested to be condoned

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 where ‘sufficient cause’ is established by the assessee. It is settled law that, the term ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Unless and until delay is found to be deliberate / intentional/ grossly negligent or aimed at taking undue advantage by creating groundless litigation, the factor or ‘Delay’ should be considered as only

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings on the borrowed satisfaction and without applying his independent mind. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in rejecting appeal on account of delay filing, without considering the facts of the case that assessee has explained the delay & the certified copy of order & demand notice was received

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

reassessment order as the same is passed against the principles of natural justice. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in, confirming the action of the Id. AO, in making addition of Rs.6,61,088/- u/s 40(a)(ia) to the income of the assessee. . The action

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay as the assessee was\nprevented with sufficient cause.\n4. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case,\nreturn of income was filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) of the Act on\n09.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,60,270/- and agriculture income\nof Rs.34,750/-. Subsequently, based on the information

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has e-filed his return of income on 09.03.2018 vide ack No. 433729340090318 showing total income of Rs. 6,58,230/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and made an addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- treating investment in mutual funds as unexplained. Subsequently, a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the CIT(A).", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the initial delay

SHRI UTTAM CHAND JAIN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay of 86 days in filing the present appeals and admit the same for hearing and adjudication. 5 ITA No. 85/JP/2016 & 4 Ors. Uttam Jain Vs ITO. 8. Now we deal with the appeal of the assesse being ITA No. 85/JP/2016 for the A.Y. 2006-07 as a lead case for the deciding the appeals. In this appeal

SHRI UTTAM CHAND JAIN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay of 86 days in filing the present appeals and admit the same for hearing and adjudication. 5 ITA No. 85/JP/2016 & 4 Ors. Uttam Jain Vs ITO. 8. Now we deal with the appeal of the assesse being ITA No. 85/JP/2016 for the A.Y. 2006-07 as a lead case for the deciding the appeals. In this appeal

UTTAM CHAND JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay of 86 days in filing the present appeals and admit the same for hearing and adjudication. 5 ITA No. 85/JP/2016 & 4 Ors. Uttam Jain Vs ITO. 8. Now we deal with the appeal of the assesse being ITA No. 85/JP/2016 for the A.Y. 2006-07 as a lead case for the deciding the appeals. In this appeal

SHRI UTTAM CHAND JAIN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay of 86 days in filing the present appeals and admit the same for hearing and adjudication. 5 ITA No. 85/JP/2016 & 4 Ors. Uttam Jain Vs ITO. 8. Now we deal with the appeal of the assesse being ITA No. 85/JP/2016 for the A.Y. 2006-07 as a lead case for the deciding the appeals. In this appeal

SHRI UTTAM CHAND JAIN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay of 86 days in filing the present appeals and admit the same for hearing and adjudication. 5 ITA No. 85/JP/2016 & 4 Ors. Uttam Jain Vs ITO. 8. Now we deal with the appeal of the assesse being ITA No. 85/JP/2016 for the A.Y. 2006-07 as a lead case for the deciding the appeals. In this appeal

BHAWANI SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings is also bad in law and hence prayed to be quashed 3. The order passed u/s 144 r/w 147 of the Act is bad in law as well as on the facts of the present case being without jurisdiction and for several other reasons and hence the same is prayed to be quashed

TASLEEM BANO,JAIPUR vs. WARD-5(4) INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay so made 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. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), 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)

condone the delay 480 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& Others 167 ITR 471(SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and inclined to decide the appeal on its merits. 3. The assessee has raised following

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

reassessment proceedings being illegal, without any basis and contrary to principles of natural justice 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO, in addition amounting to Rs. 6,56,44,910 as bogus purchase and thereby making addition to said purchase

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

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 are valid when there is a failure to obtain proper sanction and the reasons recorded are incorrect or without material evidence? Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned