RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay. The Affidavit of the\nassessee reads as under :-\n\"AFFIDAVIT\nI, Narendra Kumar Goswami S/o Shri Ram Chandra Goswami Age 61 years resident of\nAB-217, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur-302019 (Raj.) do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as\nunder.\n1. That I am the Counsel for the assessee in the present matter and am fully competent

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay. The Affidavit of the\nassessee reads as under :-\n\n“AFFIDAVIT\n\n3\nITA No. 243 Το 246/JPR/2025\nRMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur.\n\nI, Narendra Kumar Goswami S/o Shri Ram Chandra Goswami Age 61 years resident of\nAB-217, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur-302019 (Raj.) do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as\nunder

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay. The Affidavit of the\nassessee reads as under :-\n“AFFIDAVIT\nITA No. 243 Το 246/JPR/2025\nRMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur.\nI, Narendra Kumar Goswami S/o Shri Ram Chandra Goswami Age 61 years resident of\nAB-217, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur-302019 (Raj.) do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as\nunder.\n1. That

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay. The Affidavit of the\nassessee reads as under :-\n“AFFIDAVIT\n3\nITA No. 243 Το 246/JPR/2025\nRMS Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur.\nI, Narendra Kumar Goswami S/o Shri Ram Chandra Goswami Age 61 years resident of\nAB-217, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur-302019 (Raj.) do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as\nunder.\n1. That

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

reassessment, violating the judgment of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [259 ITR 19 (SC)). Thus, the entire proceedings are bad in law. 5. That the enhancement of interest u/s 234A by order u/s 154 without issuing notice or hearing opportunity is arbitrary and unjustified. That the interest u/s 234A in the earlier demand notice u/s

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

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)

147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act (herein after referred as ‘Act’), issued by AO on 05.12.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Aggrieved with the order issued by the AO, the appellant has filed present appeal on 23.01.2020. In the course of appellate proceedings, it is seen that the appellant was issued and served various notices u/s

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

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

reassessment was completed vide order dated\n26.03.2015 by making a further disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct

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

reassessment order passed by the Id. Assessing Officer u / s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act is found to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 1.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax grossly erred in passing the impugned

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay of 240 days in filing of both these appeals. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals as under :- ITA No. 152/JP/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 : “ 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay of 240 days in filing of both these appeals. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals as under :- ITA No. 152/JP/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 : “ 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condone the delay of 240 days in filing of both these appeals. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals as under :- ITA No. 152/JP/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 : “ 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred

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.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed return of income. Subsequently, a notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued to the assessee on 14/05/2012 and the assessment was completed by the A.O. U/s 147 r.w.s

SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-4, JAIPUR

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

delay being genuine deserve to be condoned. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment completed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where no notice u/s 148 was ever served upon / received by the assessee. Appellant prays that such reassessment

SHRI RAM KISHOR SAINI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-4, JAIPUR

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

delay being genuine deserve to be condoned. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment completed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where no notice u/s 148 was ever served upon / received by the assessee. Appellant prays that such reassessment

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\norder so passed deserves to be held bad in law.”\n\n2.2 As regards admission of additional ground so taken by assessee is\nconcerned, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that though legal\nground against order passed u/s 147 has been taken requesting it to\nconsider as bad in law, however, for the sake of clarity, additional

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been