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

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

condoned in view of the decision of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and\nOthers, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause.\n3.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-\n“1.1 The impugned order u/s 147 rws 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated

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

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

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

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

147 of the Act at Rs. 3,46,08,520/-. Issued demand notice and challan. Charge interest u/s 234A, u/s 234B, u/s 234C & u/s 234D of the Act. Issued penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of Income determined u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty notice u/s 271F r.w.s. 274 issued for non-compliance

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

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

delay of two days in filing\nthe appeal by the assessee is condoned.\n5.\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:\n“1. 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts of the case in confirming the validity of\nthe impugned notice u/s 148A of the Act as also the notice issued u/s

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

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