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

6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude of the assessee is negligible in nature and he has not interested in pursuing his matter before the ITAT

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

6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude of the assessee is negligible in nature and he has not interested in pursuing his matter before the ITAT

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

6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude of the assessee is negligible in nature and he has not interested in pursuing his matter before the ITAT

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

6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude of the assessee is negligible in nature and he has not interested in pursuing his matter before the ITAT

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

6. On the other hand, the ld DR has raised objection about condonation of delay and submitted that the facts and reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. The attitude of the assessee is negligible in nature and he has not interested in pursuing his matter before the ITAT

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

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay of 487 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for hearing. 7. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the NP rate of 10.16% subject to Depreciation and Interest to third

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay of 487 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for hearing. 7. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the NP rate of 10.16% subject to Depreciation and Interest to third

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone such delay on the authorities concerned. ITO(E) Vs. Shri Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra ITA No. 410/Ahd/2022 order dt. 19.05.2023 (Ahmedabad) (Trib.) The relevant para 6 to 6.2 is reproduced as under:- 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. The moot question whether it is permissible to the assessee to produce

SUKHAD JEEVAN SANSTHAN,CHITTORGARH vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

section IO(23C) of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone the delay. However, this Court is inclined to give appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application as an application for the subsequent assessment year, namely, 2013-2014 in accordance with law. Such direction is issued considering the peculiar

SEEMA PANDIT,MOUNT AU vs. ITO, WARD, MOUNT ABU

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

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

delay of 208 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned 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 is prevented by sufficient cause. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “i). That

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Sarda Devi Chechani vs. ITO Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 5. Since, the facts of all the cases

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Sarda Devi Chechani vs. ITO Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 5. Since, the facts of all the cases

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Sarda Devi Chechani vs. ITO Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 5. Since, the facts of all the cases

SMT. SARLA SINGHVI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay has been condoned on verification. (Pg No. 34-38 of PB) 3. Moreover, the form no 10 does not contain any such column to provide itemised detail of investments made u/s 11(5). In evidence, copy of form 10 downloaded from Income Tax Portal enclosed at pg no. 39-41 of PB. Firstly: The very basic ground for addition

LAKECITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, UDAIPUR

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

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

Section 249 does allow the admission of appeals filed with delay if the CIT(A) is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within time However, as discussed in the preceding Para, the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in filing of the appeals under consideration Application for condonation

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the Appellant. 6

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the Appellant. 6