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)

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(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CBDT’s Circular No. 6/2020 dated

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)

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(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CBDT’s Circular No. 6/2020 dated

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9] [Matter remanded] Shilpaben Nileshbhai Gami vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 169 taxmann.com 595 (Gujarat High Court)[19-11-2024] Section 68, read with section 45 and 254, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit(Condonation of delay) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order upholding capital gain of certain amount to be bogus - Assessee

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

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

9 and 10][In favour of assessee] Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) [2021]125 Taxmann.com75 (Gujarat) has held as under: Section 12A, read with section 119, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable trust - Registration Procedure (Condonation of delay in filing Form 10B) - Assessment year 2016-17- Assessee

WHOLERY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

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

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

Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the return of income for AY 2017-18 filed by the on 21.03.2018, vide Acknowledgement No. 473392361210318 is treated as invalid return". Hence the AO rejected the application of the assessee with following narration. ‘’In view of above, since this is not the mistake apparent from record and due to invalid

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

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

9] [In favour of assessee]\"\nWe therefore request you to kindly delete the Additions on Account\nof Salary of Rs. 29,86,963/- (HK$ 360000/-) received for services\nrendered in Hong Kong.\n3. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in\ntreating the Humble Appellant as an Resident Instead of Non\n27\nITA No. 1112/JP/2024\nSaket Agarwal

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)

139 of the Act nor in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, ld. AO noted that the for the year under consideration the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 17,26,200/- in S.B. a/c with Oriental Bank of Commerce on various dates. Since there is no explanation or compliance of notices ld. AO treated

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

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is now adjudicated on merit. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that a survey action 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 28-08-2018 at business premises of the assessee firm. The assessee filed its original return of income

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

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

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

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

BLUEPRINT INFRAHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ADIT CPC BENGALURU OR ITO WARD 6(1) 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)

139 of the Act, it was submitted, stands on a higher footing, then the return which is filed even beyond this period. The arguments of the Revenue that return filed late can only be considered if the delay is attributable to the Revenue, cannot be concurred with. In the face of decisions which hold that the said provision

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.

139(1) dated 29.11.2017 vide acknowledgement no. 319425571291117declaring total income of Rs.10,06,81,360/-. The AO(CPC) while processing the return u/s 143(1) on 18.01.2019 made adjustment of Rs.40,31,300/- u/s 43B on account of 3 Jaipur Rugs Company Pvt Ltd. vs. DCIT unpaid bonus as per Form 3CD dt. 04.10.2017. Against that intimation the appellant-assessee

A.N. SCHOOL SHIKSHA SAMITI,SIKAR vs. JCIT-RANGE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 252/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 A.N. School Shiksha Samiti, Cuke J.C.I.T.-Range Vs. Radha Swami Bag, (Exemption) Sikar-303702 Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabaa 6164 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kr Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 06/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 272A(2)(E) Dated 02/11/2018 As Well As Notices Are Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,53,700/- U/S 272A(2)(E) Invoked By The Ld Jcit. The Penalty So Imposed & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Deleted.

condone the delay of 132 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. The brief facts of the case are that as per the revenue, the assessee trust was required to file its return of income U/s 139(4C)(e) of the Act by 31/07/2010 for the year under consideration. However, return in this case

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)

139 Taxman.com 121. Submission:- 1. Section 80G allows deduction to an assessee in computing his total income in respect of donation paid to any fund or institution. However, under sub-section 5, the deduction is allowable only if such fund or institution is established in India for charitable purpose and it fulfills the following conditions:- (i) The income