RAM DEV DAIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-1, JHUNJHUNU

Bench: The Tribunal. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Referred To The Contents Of The Application While Orally Making Out A Case Of There Being

condonation of delay. 15. That the calculation chart of period of delay is as follows:- 9 Ram Dev Daiya 16. That the Other Reasons:- (i). Assessee is a retired salaried, Senior Citizen. So, the demand of Rs. 3,15,998/ is very huge amount caused hardship. (ii). The demand raised without following the Natural Justice and the addition is without

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

14 M/s Singhania University vs. CIT(E) (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in time; or (c) served upon him in an improper manner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment.” It was submitted by the ld CIT/DR

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section of the I.T. Act, 1961—Assessee preferred rectification application to AO to rectify his order for Assessment Year 1994-95 and Assessment Year 1996-97— Rectification application was rejected by AO—CIT(A) upheld order of AO— Assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filling appeal against order of CIT(A)—Tribunal held that assessee simply put responsibility

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, 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)

14. It is also submitted that appellant submitted the Form 10 to Id CIT Exemption (for AY 2010-11) with 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

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)

14. It is also submitted that appellant submitted the Form 10 to Id CIT Exemption (for AY 2010-11) with 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

VIVEK SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1134 & 1135/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Vivek Shiksha Samiti Jobner Road, Kalwar, VIA Jhotwara, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Exemption-1, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTV0361Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gatum Singh Choudhary

14-27) wherein on similar facts it was held that in case of charitable institutions wherein there is no provision of distribution of profit amongst the members thereof provisions of section 164(2) are applicable which is a specific section for charging tax on charitable and religious trust and same is not governed by provisions of section

RAGHAV DANGAYACH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1) JPR, JAIPUR

15. As a result, the application seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the inordinate delay in filing the proposed appeal. 34. The Special Leave Petition, as such, lacks merit and is dismissed.” 14. Here, the record would reveal that during pendency of the appeal before Learned CIT(A), the applicant remained non compliant despite issuance of four notices issued under section 250 of the Act, during the period from

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,SIRGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

14 appeals have been filed by the assessee against different orders of the ld. CIT(A) detailing it as under:- SHAILENDRA GARG VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA Nos. A.Y. CIT(A) order dated Decision by CIT(A) Delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT 7/JP/2025 2011-12 CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated Dismissed the 3140 days