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)

section 11(2) by condoning delay in filing Form No. 10 Commissioner, however, rejected said application Assessee filed additional ground

DCIT, CIRCLE EXEMPTION JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. STATE INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, JAIPR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

condonation for Audit Reports & for accumulation in form 10&10B, while ld. CIT(A) does not have any right for same" iv. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing accumulation under 11(2), while there was not conscious accumulation by assesse, no earmarking fund

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made:] Provided that where registration has been granted to the trust

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made:] Provided that where registration has been granted to the trust

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

11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the assessee in the present appeal has raised effectively two grounds of appeals. Ground no. 1 relates to the grievance of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filling that appeal belayed with him. The facts

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 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)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

11. On the facts & circumstances of the case ld. A.O. grossly erred in applying the provision of section 50C ignoring the fact that transfer was made vide sale agreement on dated 22.01.2006. 12. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law also ld. Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in modifying the assessment order passed u/s 147/143

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.”

2 months. The appellant has also taken the ground for condonation of the said delay stating that "Appeal could not be filed within stipulated time as our office was not working with full strength due to the coronavirus pandemic". 4.2 Considering the genuine difficulty faced by the appellant due to the Covid19 pandemic, condone the aforesaid delay. The appeal

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

11(2). 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of rejecting the claim of the assessee trust, under section 24(a), being 30 percent of the rental income, amounting to Rs. 4,93,435 carmed by the assessee trust. The action

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

11 days and sought condonation of delay in filing appeal stating that delay was due to non-availability of its legal consultant - Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone delay and dismissed appeal in limine - Whether since filing an appeal in tax matters 13 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT required legal and technical assistance, reason advanced by assessee for condoning delay

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

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

section 11(2) -Assessing Officer rejected said claim on grounds that Form 10 was not filed - Thereafter, Form 10 was filed beyond due date along with application for condonation of delay

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this 10 Lalita Devi Sharma vs. ITO when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

delay of 10 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 marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

RAJASTHAN NURSING COUNCIL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC, BANGALORE

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 in filing of the Income Tax Return as there is no delay. Further, we also rely on several judgment on the similar facts, where the benefit of section 11 and 12 were provided. 1. In the case of Conference of Religious India vs. Ward Exemption 1(3), New Delhi, the Honorable Delhi Bench of ITAT has held