KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

condone the delay of 292 days in filing of appeal. 5. It is observed that during the year under consideration the assessee sold property situated at Village Deoli Arab Road, Tehsil Ladpura, and Kota for Rs. 3.08 Cr. Which was jointly owned by the assessee himself and some Mr. Naveen Kumar in 50:50, meaning thereby the share

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

5", "Section 6", "Section 270A", "Section 139"], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned.\n2. Whether

RAJASTHAN NURSING COUNCIL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5) are fulfilled, is not allowed in accordance with the provisions of section 13(9) of the Income Tax Act”, hence, the exemption under section 11(2) was denied to the appellant Council. In this case, the due date referred for filing of ITR was not correct, as the ITR was filed within the time allowed under section 139

SUNIL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 6(5), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5) are fulfilled, is not allowed in accordance with the provisions of section 13(9) of the Income Tax Act”, hence, the exemption under section 11(2) was denied to the appellant Council. In this case, the due date referred for filing of ITR was not correct, as the ITR was filed within the time allowed under section 139

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. As is evident from the above finding of the ld. CIT(A) that he has not condone the delay in filling the appeal by the assessee before him which was delayed by 114Days. The assessee submitted that the appeal was filed delayed because the accountant of the assessee was not regular in attending the office due to medical emergency

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

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

139; Accordingly, ITAT holds that the case clearly falls beyond scope of Para 4(i) of Circular No. 10/2019 and since the Assessee failed to file any application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) as mandated in Para 4(ii) of the said circular, the delay cannot be condoned. 4.9 In view of the above

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

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.\r\nA claim for deduction under section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a\r\nreturn filed beyond the time permitted under the Act, ignores the perspective that\r\nsees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in a valid return pre-\r\ncondition

PARITRUPTI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay and therefore the application filed by the assessee is rejected as non- maintainable for which reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT in case of Bishnupur Public Education Institute 139 Taxman.com 121. Submission:- 5. Section

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)

condonation petition for delay before the Commission of Income Tax (Exemption). 7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission of both the appeals relating to the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 with the prayers to delete the addition

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)

condonation petition for delay before the Commission of Income Tax (Exemption). 7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission of both the appeals relating to the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 with the prayers to delete the addition

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several 4 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

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)

condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 2. Sant Kabir Mahasabha Versus The CIT (Exemption) Chandigarh (ITA No. 84/CHD/2023) (ITAT, Chandigarh) Merely uploading of information about the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order

RANIWALA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

delay in verification of Form No. 10DA, which is otherwise uploaded well in time can be made basis for disallowance, on procedural ground, or not. It is observed that the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) - 6, Mumbairelied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC)Principal Commissioner of Income-taxvs.Wipro

GO GRAM ECO FOUNDATION,GOVINDGARH TEHSIL CHOMU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

delay of more than six months should not be considered as violation of section 80G (5)(iii) according to which application under section 80G 5(iii) is to be filed within six months of commencement of activities or six months before expiry of the provisional registration, whichever is earlier." In response of the notice the A/r of the applicant submitted

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

delay without condoning the same, despite existence of bonafide and sufficient cause. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order dated 26.02.2014 was never served earlier and the appeal was filed promptly after receiving a copy in 2019. 3. That the Ld. AO erred in making an addition ofRs.17,26,200 as unexplained cash deposits

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.  SoneraoSadashivrao Patil &Anr. v. Godawaribai [MANU/MH/0022/2000: 1999 (2) Manu

RAJ RISHI BHARTRIHARI MATSYA UNIVERSITY ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALWAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed\nfor statistical purpose

139 taxmann.com 121, wherein the Hon'ble\nTribunal while adjudicating the issue of similar provisions of due date u/s 10(23C)\nof the Act, after placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt and that of Hon'ble High Court has held as under.\n\"5. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay as the assessee was\nprevented with sufficient cause.\n4. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case,\nreturn of income was filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) of the Act on\n09.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,60,270/- and agriculture income\nof Rs.34,750/-. Subsequently, based on the information

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT LTD.,MANSAROVAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income For The Assessment Year.

condonation of delay is not granted, there is no need to adjudication on merits of the case”. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Addl/JCIT(A) 11, Mumbai has grossly erred in law as well as facts in sustaining disallowance of Rs.38,74,377/- ignoring that- (i) As per ITR form 6 there is no option