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

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

TANUJ JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-7(2),JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

2), CPC and Section 5\nof the Limitation Act, thus categorically demonstrating that they are to\nbe decided on similar grounds.”\nAfter evaluating the facts of the present case, the Bench is conscious of the facts\nthat the Courts should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the\napplication for condonation of delay. However, the Court while allowing such

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

12 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT considering the condonation delay application along with Affidavit arbitrarily dismiss the appeal of assessee. Relevant para of ld. CIT(A) observation is reproduced as under— “5.8 In view of the foregoing discussion, factual matrix and the judicial precedents, I find that no case has been made out by the assessee for existence of sufficient

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to\ncosts

2 SCC_107 = AIR 1987 SC 1353\noriented approach' and cause for the advancement of ‘substantial justice'\ncannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale\nmatters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by\ntaking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.\n17. It must always

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

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

12 of the Act. 4.4 The learned AO also enquired about spending on capital expenditure of the appellant. As per the assessment order, the appellant did not file any details regarding the same. 4.5 During the appellate proceedings the appellant submitted that it had delayed filing of report in form 10B and such delay was condoned by way of CBDT

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

A BLISS OF CREATOR SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

2), CPC and Section 5\nof the Limitation Act, thus categorically demonstrating that they are to\nbe decided on similar grounds.”\nAfter evaluating the facts of the present case, the Bench is conscious of the facts\nthat the Courts should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the\napplication for condonation of delay. However, the Court while allowing such

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

12 of the CPB-1). The said Appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the ground of condonation of delay only, despite giving adverse findings on merits of the case after holding that the Appellant is non-resident. 17. There had been plausible reasons as duly explained in condonation of delay application of the Appellant for filing

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

12 of the CPB-1). The said Appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the ground of condonation of delay only, despite giving adverse findings on merits of the case after holding that the Appellant is non-resident. 17. There had been plausible reasons as duly explained in condonation of delay application of the Appellant for filing

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

12 of the CPB-1). The said Appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the ground of condonation of delay only, despite giving adverse findings on merits of the case after holding that the Appellant is non-resident. 17. There had been plausible reasons as duly explained in condonation of delay application of the Appellant for filing

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

12 of the CPB-1). The said Appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the ground of condonation of delay only, despite giving adverse findings on merits of the case after holding that the Appellant is non-resident. 17. There had been plausible reasons as duly explained in condonation of delay application of the Appellant for filing

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)

12, date of AO order 13-11-2018 and date of CIT(A) order dated 03-10- 2023 and other narrations are same as in the assessment year 2010-11 which is not required to repeat. Besides the applications for condonation of delay for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12, the ld. AR of the assessee filed affidavits

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)

12, date of AO order 13-11-2018 and date of CIT(A) order dated 03-10- 2023 and other narrations are same as in the assessment year 2010-11 which is not required to repeat. Besides the applications for condonation of delay for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12, the ld. AR of the assessee filed affidavits

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

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 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 must be explained

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