MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 23/03/2017 and 16/12/2017, for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 respectively in the matter of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 23/03/2017 and 16/12/2017, for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 respectively in the matter of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 23/03/2017 and 16/12/2017, for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 respectively in the matter of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

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. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 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)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

6 ITA 87/Jodh/2019_ Vamita Singh Vs ITO circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of 62 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. All the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of imposing and sustaining penalty U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, therefore

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur dated 28.06.2019 [here in after (Ld. CIT(A))] for assessment year 2009-10. 2 Smt. Jaya Mogra 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 05.10.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 16 days

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 05.10.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 16 days

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 05.10.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 16 days

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

6 which read as under: "5. We note that the Hon’ble High Court decided the Constitutional validity of sec. 234E of the Act after taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom) which was decided on 06.02.2015 wherein

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

6 which read as under: "5. We note that the Hon’ble High Court decided the Constitutional validity of sec. 234E of the Act after taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom) which was decided on 06.02.2015 wherein

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

6 which read as under: "5. We note that the Hon’ble High Court decided the Constitutional validity of sec. 234E of the Act after taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom) which was decided on 06.02.2015 wherein

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

6 which read as under: "5. We note that the Hon’ble High Court decided the Constitutional validity of sec. 234E of the Act after taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom) which was decided on 06.02.2015 wherein

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

6 which read as under: "5. We note that the Hon’ble High Court decided the Constitutional validity of sec. 234E of the Act after taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom) which was decided on 06.02.2015 wherein

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

6 which read as under: "5. We note that the Hon’ble High Court decided the Constitutional validity of sec. 234E of the Act after taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom) which was decided on 06.02.2015 wherein

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

6 of the aforesaid order dt. 10/05/2019 as under: 5. We note that the Hon’ble High Court decided the Constitutional validity of sec. 234E of the Act after taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Rashmikant Kundalia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom) which was decided

COUNTRY ART AND CRAFT LLP,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

253 of the IT Act, 1961." In view of the above, it is requested that since the delay is covered by the extended period for filing appeal as per the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is requested that the same may kindly be condoned and oblige. Thanking You, Yours faithfully FOR APPELANT 3. During the course