RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

delay condonation request, however same has been rejected. 15 Further, it is humbly submitted that all the information which is covered under the Form 10 was duly available with the Id AO. Copy of Balance Sheet, Income and Expenditure Account. Audit Report etc were submitted to the Id AO during the course of assessment proceedings Considering all these facts, mere

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

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

108. On review of response of the appellant the leamed AO noticed that Form N.10B was uploaded electronically by the assessee trust on 25/03/2017, Which is much 7 Jawaharlal Nehru Shekshanik And Samajik Sansthan vs. Exemption after due date of filing income tax return. Thus, assessee trust has not submitted Form No.10B along with the return of income within

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)

108 TTJ 1061 ITD 513(Indore) decided that there was no reasonable cause for delay on part of revenue. This decision once taken cannot justify delay to file appeal. Hence, the reasonable cause for delay was not established. 10.9 In the case of Madhu Dadha Vs. ACIT, [2009] 317 ITR 458 (Mad.) the learned Court while dismissing appeal noticed that

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

108 to 126). Before we refer to those decisions, we take note of the fact that admittedly the Tax Audit Report and the Balance Sheet alongwith annexures were filed within the due date i.e. 29.09.2013 and the report u/s 80IC on form 10CCB was filed on 28.09.2013. These facts are coming from the record itself as extracted in the earlier

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

MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 220 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

ENOCHY CHILDREN RELIEF SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

10 for allowing accumulation of funds in terms of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue on hand is similar in the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Bangalore bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Madvirshiv Shivogimandir Enochy Children Relief Society, Jaipur. Samsthe, Bagalkot in ITA no. 1402/Bang/2024 wherein the similar issue

ENOCHY CHILDREN RELIEF SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

10 for allowing accumulation of funds in terms of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue on hand is similar in the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Bangalore bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Madvirshiv Shivogimandir Enochy Children Relief Society, Jaipur. Samsthe, Bagalkot in ITA no. 1402/Bang/2024 wherein the similar issue

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone\nthe delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before us but with a cost of Rs.\n5,000/- to be deposited into the Prime Minister Relief Fund to be\ndeposited by the assessee when the assessee apply for the appeal effect of\nthis order.\n\n4.\nBrief facts of the Case are that the assessee had filed

PANKAJ MANI KULSHRESHTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

condoned the delay of 208 days. However, the ITAT observed that the assessee had failed to comply with income tax proceedings before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A). Despite various notices and opportunities, the assessee did not respond or participate in the proceedings. The ITAT noted that the appeal had been dismissed

PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

delay of 462 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS VS PCIT, UDIAPUR Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal

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

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

condone the delay of 96\ndays in filing the appeals by the assessee in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition\nvs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The fact as culled out from the records is that M/s Shiv

BLUEPRINT INFRAHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ADIT CPC BENGALURU OR ITO WARD 6(1) JAIPUR, 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)

10 days. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee is LLP and claimed u/s 80IBA and in the section 80IBA there was no reference for filling the ITR in due date, however the same is provided u/s 80AC where it has been provided to claim the deduction under chapter VIC the return is required to be filed

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

condone the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. Based on the guidance of the apex 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. 6. Now coming to the merits of the case, the brief facts, as culled

KAILASH CHAND MEENA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

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 of 451 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 13.06,2017 declaring income of Rs. 4,02,330/-. Later on revised return of income was filed on 21.06.2017 declaring income

S R AUTOMOBILES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), 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 of 535 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 and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the return declaring income