ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoned for adequate reasons demonstrated by the Revenue then even where delay occurs for reasons not attributable to the Revenue also. In the absence of any other argument, we do not see how in the facts as considered by different Courts in the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR, why they should not be applied. Once it has been

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

13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as\r\ndonation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69А—CIT(A)\r\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such\r\nas with regard to claim for carry forward of depreciation etc—Tribunal after\r\ntaking note of factual

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

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” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner

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

Condonation of delay under clause (b) of sub-section (2)\nSection 119 of the Income Tax Act for returns of income\nclaiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act for various assessment\nyears from AY 2018-19 to AY 2022-23- Reg.”\nWe find from the available records that the assessment in the case of the assessee\nhad been completed

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

GULAB BAI,KOTA vs. ITO, INCOME TAX

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

1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections\n4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application\nmade after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has\nnot been set up as a defence.\"\n11. Though Section 3 of the Act mentions about suit, appeal and application\nbut since in this case we are concerned with appeal

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 :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

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 :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

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 :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

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 :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

delay in filing Form No.10AB deserved to be condoned. 7. Otherwise also, CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dt. 25.04.2024 has extended the time for filing the application for permanent approval till 30.06.2024 whereas in earlier Circular No.6/2023 dt. 24.05.2023 the time for filing application for permanent approval u/s 80G was not extended till 30.09.2023. Therefore, on harmonious interpretation of both

VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

delay in filing Form No.10AB deserved to be condoned. 7. Otherwise also, CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dt. 25.04.2024 has extended the time for filing the application for permanent approval till 30.06.2024 whereas in earlier Circular No.6/2023 dt. 24.05.2023 the time for filing application for permanent approval u/s 80G was not extended till 30.09.2023. Therefore, on harmonious interpretation of both

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

1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections\n4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application\nmade after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has\nnot been set up as a defence.\"\n11. Though Section 3 of the Act mentions about suit, appeal and application\nbut since in this case we are concerned with appeal

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

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

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

condonation of delay wherein the Bench does not find any sufficient and reasonable cause for late filing the appeal by the assessee. Hence, the same is dismissed. 3.1 Now the Bench feels that the case of the assessee should also be adjudicated upon on merit wherein the crux of the issue in the appeal relates to late deposit of employees

RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

13,430\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide order dated September\n27, 2010, annexure A-1 as the quantum was confirmed.\nAggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). Vide order\ndated June 6, 2011, annexure A-2, the appeal was dismissed\nconfirming the penalty. The appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

13 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT required legal and technical assistance, reason advanced by assessee for condoning delay was sufficient and delay had to be condoned by Commissioner (Appeals) - Held, yes - Whether Commissioner (Appeals) was to be directed to consider assessee's appeal on merits - Held, yes [Paras 8 and 9] [Matter remanded] Shilpaben Nileshbhai Gami vs. Assistant Commissioner

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

condoned.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961", "Section 143(1) of the Act", "Section 13 of Information Technology Act 2000", "Sections 282/282A of Income Tax Act", "Rule 127/127A of the Income Tax Rules", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963", "Section 3 of the Limitation Act", "Order 22 Rule 9 (2), CPC" ], "issues": "Whether the delay

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

condone the delay as the assessee was vigilant and was prevented by sufficient cause and therefore, we admit this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the sale proceeds from the sale of rural agricultural land as income u/s 69A. 4 Roshal