ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur has erred in withdrawing the registration u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(Exemptions) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

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)

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963- Provides that delay can be condoned if "sufficient cause" is shown. Courts have consistently held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other. cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. (b) Case Laws Supporting the Appellant:- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

M.S. MODI AND SONS ,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, DELHI

10A of the Income Tax Act. In Form 56P filed for A.Y. 2009-10 (APB 07-09), date of commencement of manufacture was mentioned as "17 October 2008" and "Number of consecutive year for which the deduction is claimed was mentioned as "First" Afterwards, appellant claimed deduction u/s 10AA in subsequent assessment years i.e. from A.Y. 2010-11 and till

SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay can be condoned. Further, as rightly held by the learned CIT (A), the Courts have held that due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to extended period provided u/s 139(4). In view of this reason also, the order of CIT (A) is to be upheld." (e) That for these and some

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay. 5. As regards the matter in appeal, we note that the same is against order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. At the outset, in this case, Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the notice to the assessee u/s. 263 of the Act in these case, was issued by letter dated

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST KOTA,KOTA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

2 Urban Improvement Trust vs. CIT(E) limited grievance of the assessee trust in the present appeal is regarding non- grant of registration with retrospective effect from the date of its inception. 5. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the condonation application dated 28.05.2007 which was filed along with Form 10A before the ld. CIT, Kota for seeking

PARITRUPTI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay of six months from commencement of its activities. Since the assessee required to file an application in Form No. 10AB u/s clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of sec. 80G of the Act within the time period of at least six months prior to expiry of period of the provisional approval or within six months

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.\r\nA claim for deduction under section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a\r\nreturn filed beyond the time permitted under the Act, ignores the perspective that\r\nsees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in a valid return pre-\r\ncondition

RAJASTHAN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY,KOTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10A for registration U/s 12A on 26.05.2017 and sought registration with retrospective from 31.12.2005. The ld. CIT(E) has granted registration w.e.f. 01.04.2017 i.e. 1st day of the financial year in which the application was submitted. The ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is having a good case on merits as the assessee was earlier eligible for exemption

M/S BALAJI CHARITABLE TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 39/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :...................... M/S Balaji Charitable Trust, Cuke Cit(Exemptions), Vs. 117, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaatb 2683 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Anant Kasliwal (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Jaipur Dated 23/03/2021 Passed U/S 80G(5)(Vi) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised.

10A, filed on the same date. 3. Because, the order impugned, unless withdrawn, shall result in gross injustice to the petitioner as also its donors, without there being any deficiency/violation in the working of the humble appellant trust. The humble appellant craves leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to add, to alter, amend or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

BLOSSOM,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2. Representations have been received in the Board with a request to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e.. 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

2,22,704/- under section 80P of the Act. The issue for consideration before us is that whether once the return of income is filed beyond the prescribed date under section 139(1) of the Act, can the deduction under section 80P of the Act be denied to the assessee, by way of adjustment under section

GREETING HANDS FOR ABANDONED RESCUES TRUST ,AJMER vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), AJMER

In the result, bunch of four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

delay of nine days in filing the Greeting Hands for Abandoned Rescues Trust vs. ITO 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. In ITA No. 825/JP/2024

GREETING HANDS FOR ABANDONED RESCUES TRUST,AJMER vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), AJMER

In the result, bunch of four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

delay of nine days in filing the Greeting Hands for Abandoned Rescues Trust vs. ITO 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. In ITA No. 825/JP/2024

GREETING HANDS FOR ABANDONED RESCUES TRUST,AJMER vs. ITO WARD -2(1), AJMER

In the result, bunch of four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay of nine days in filing the Greeting Hands for Abandoned Rescues Trust vs. ITO 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. In ITA No. 825/JP/2024

GREETING HANDS FOR ABANDONED RESCUES TRUST,AJMER vs. ITO WARD -2(1), AJMER

In the result, bunch of four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

delay of nine days in filing the Greeting Hands for Abandoned Rescues Trust vs. ITO 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. In ITA No. 825/JP/2024

RADHEY SHYAM MANDIR TRUST,JHALAWAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

2. In this connection, it is humbly submitted that the due to wide spread of pandemic COVID-19, there was a delay in signing and submission of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. The trustee being old aged person restricted their movement to safeguard themselves. This has contributed minor delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal. 3. That

UTTRAKHAND SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

10A and 10AB. Based on the aforementioned circular, the commencement of activities and the delay in filing the application in Form 10AB earlier are to be taken into consideration. 6. Commencement of activities and delay filing of Form 10AB under section 80G(5)(iii) decided by The honorable High Court Of Judicature At Madras in the matter of Sri Nrisimha