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)

125 taxmann.com 75/278 Taxman 148 It is further noted that the Id. CIT(A) in view of the above discussions held that the AO erred in not allowing deduction to the/assessee for the amount accumulated under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The Id. CIT(A) further observed that it was merely a procedural lapse

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)

125 taxmann.com 75/278 Taxman 148 It is further noted that the Id. CIT(A) in view of the above discussions held that the AO erred in not allowing deduction to the/assessee for the amount accumulated under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The Id. CIT(A) further observed that it was merely a procedural lapse

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY,ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B before the Appropriate Authorities and has totally overlooked the observations of the various Higher Courts that even if Form No. 10B is filed at a later stage before the A.O. or before the Appellate Authorities, it would be sufficient compliance with requirements of section

SITA RAM SAINI,CHOMU, JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay should receive a liberal construction as to advance the substantial Justice.. 3. Now coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has 5 Sh. Sita Ram Saini vs. ITO challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), NFAC with

RADHESHYAM MEENA,RAJGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

9. In view of the discussion and reasons recorded above, in the interest of justice, we hereby allow the appeal for statistical purposes, set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A)

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

125 days in filing the appeal. 3. Feeling further dissatisfied the impugned order, the assessee has come up in appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. 3 Sh. Radheshyam Meena vs. ITO 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 5. On behalf of the assessee, the ld. AR of the assessee has referred to para 28 of the impugned order. In said para

BE POSITIVE SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

125 & 126/JPR/2024 filed are delayed by 298 days. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the petition for condonation of delay with following prayers in ITA No. 125/JPR/2024:- “1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is Trust/Society. The assessee has filed application before CIT(Exemption), Jaipur for registration u/ 12AB

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

delay made in the case of the assessee is condoned and appeal is decided on merits. 7. The fact as culled out from the records is that the return was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. -4,93,41,587/- on 30.09.2015. During the year, the assessee has derived income from business of manufacturing of iron billets and interest

BE POSITIVE SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

125 & 126/JPR/2024 filed are delayed by\n298 days. The Id. AR of the assessee relied upon the petition for\ncondonation of delay with following prayers in ITA No.\n125/JPR/2024:-\n\"1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is Trust/Society.\nThe assessee has filed application before CIT(Exemption), Jaipur for\nregistration u/ 12AB

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SHRI GANPATI DEVELOPERS, KOTA

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1348/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Shri Ganpati Developers, Vs. Circle-1, C-150, Road No. 5, I.P.I.A., Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 8967 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

125 (Raj) (vi) Ritesh Kumar Somani vs. ITO— ITA No.618/JP/2011 dated 30.12.2011 (Jaipur ITAT) (vii) Babulal Somani vs. ITO — ITA No. 610/JP/2011 dated 13.01.2012 (Jaipur ITAT) 10. Non mentioning of Skeleton in Flat no. 203 by deed writer is a technical flaw. It's sale price is not disputed by. Service. Tax Authorities and Stamp Authorities. Therefore sustaining addition

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

delay of 125 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO, in making adjustments in the intimation under Section

KINKINI,BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of Form 10B should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. In the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO(E) [2021] 125 taxmann.com 75/278 Taxman 148 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that where assessee, a public charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the Act had substantially

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

condone the delay of 19 days in\nfiling the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471\n(SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derived

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

delay of 53 days in filing the cross objection 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. 6 Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

ANIL KUMAR MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 451 days in filing the appeal before us. 4 Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was living outside India and had no taxable income in India, therefore, no return of income was filed for the year under consideration. On the basis of AIR information, received from Vaishali

MRITUNJAY KNOWLEDGE CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BARAN, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAN

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted on merits of the case. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed on 30/11/2019 on total income of Rs.85,09,780/- as against returned income of Rs. 4,25,160/- under section

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the same. 3. Vide impugned order dated 14.08.2024, the assessment order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer has been set aside . 4. As is available from the assessment order dated 17.05.2023, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 19,18,18,106. Assessment order was passed