DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

section 11(5) of the Act. Further vide reply dated 10.08.2015 submitted as under: “The above party has informed us the final hearing of Gutab Kothari V/s State has completed and they are waiting for decision, however we have informed them that either they should give us land by end of this month or return our money. Please note that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

section 11(5) of the Act. Further vide reply dated 10.08.2015 submitted as under: “The above party has informed us the final hearing of Gutab Kothari V/s State has completed and they are waiting for decision, however we have informed them that either they should give us land by end of this month or return our money. Please note that

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)

condoning delay in filing Form No. 10 Commissioner, however, rejected said application Assessee filed additional ground before Tribunal stating that trust was not taxable in view of resolution of accumulation and notice thereof to ITO under section 11(2) Tribunal admitted additional ground and taking view that since assessee had complied with all conditions prescribed in section 11(2) concluded

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)

condoning delay in filing Form No. 10 Commissioner, however, rejected said application Assessee filed additional ground before Tribunal stating that trust was not taxable in view of resolution of accumulation and notice thereof to ITO under section 11(2) Tribunal admitted additional ground and taking view that since assessee had complied with all conditions prescribed in section 11(2) concluded

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

delay in filing the cross objection and the same is hereby condoned and the cross objection so filed by the assessee trust is admitted for adjudication. 6. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 147, being prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, are safeguarded by certain preconditions. In the present case

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

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

condonation of delay filed before CIT(A), for 7-8 the A.Y. 2016-17 5. Order u/s 154 dated 09/06/2019 passed by ITO(E)-1, 9 Jaipur for the A.Y. 2013-14 6. Intimation u/s 143(1) dated 02.03.2015 for the A.Y. 10-12 2013-14 7. Computation of Income for the A.Y. 2013-14 13 8. Order

SETH RB MOONDHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BANI PARK ,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 11(5) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules. 3. Charging of tax @30% instead of applicable tax u/s 2 of Finance Act, 2013 @10% is bad in law and facts. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO (CPC) has erred, both on facts and in law, charging

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), 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)

section 13(1)(c) can be charged to tax at MMR but exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied in toto. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 28,51,300/- by holding that the following amount paid to persons specified u/s 13(3) is unreasonable and unjustified

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

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

5, has observed that Form 10B was uploaded electronically on 25.3.2017 (copy enclosed) and not alongwith the return of income within the due date. It was eventually concluded by ld.AO that since assessee has neither explained reason for delay in filing audit report nor has filed any application for condonation of such delay and moreover evidence regarding registration u/s 12AA

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)

5 of the Limitation Act is being considered. The State has not acted improperly in relying on its legal advisers." 3.3 In the case of United Christmas celebration committee charitable trust vs. ITO. (2017) 249 Taxman 0372 (Madras) (Delay 1631 days), held that “Appeal—Condonation of delay—Tribunal refused to entertain appeal of Assessee-charitable institution filed against order passed

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It was noted that there can be same lapse on the part of the litigant concerned causing the delay, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and shut the doors against him. That as long as the explanation offered

SHRI RAKESH GARH,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. Sh. Rakesh Garg Vs ITO 11. Though assessment and penalty proceedings are independent proceedings but at the same time, there is a close

SHRI RAKESH GARG,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. Sh. Rakesh Garg Vs ITO 11. Though assessment and penalty proceedings are independent proceedings but at the same time, there is a close

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

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

delay deserves to be condoned. 11. That, further it is submitted that, as per section 5 of the Act of 1963, delay

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)

condoned. ] 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that the assessee-applicant has failed to establish that there was any sufficient cause for non filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, 4 Raghav Dangayach, Jaipur. and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, being barred by limitation