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

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

b) of the Act, it was categorically held that the provisions of s. 13 would be attracted only at the time of assessment and not at the time of grant of registration. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble High Court at para 8 of his order is as under: "8. Thus, very premise for the CIT to come

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

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

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

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

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

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 153 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, as there were three orders, the three sperate appeals was required

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 :

b) "eligible assessee" means, — (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned

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 :

b) "eligible assessee" means, — (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned

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 :

b) "eligible assessee" means, — (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned

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 :

b) "eligible assessee" means, — (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation in respective appeals

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation in respective appeals

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation in respective appeals

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation in respective appeals

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation in respective appeals

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

b) holding that the appellant of 376 days in not failed to furnish timely filing the appeal documentary evidence in and delay not support of his claim for condoned delay in filing the appeal 2.1 It is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed application for condonation in respective appeals