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)

condone the delay which has occurred in filing the present Income Tax Appeal challenging the Order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Income Tax Department (NFAC) 2. That, present appeal against the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 was required to be filed within 60 days from the receipt of the Order dated 23.03.2023 i.e. before 23.05.2023. However

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

144B", "Section 5", "Section 6", "Section 270A", "Section 139"], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned

M/S MARATHON INDIA LTD.,RAJASTHAN vs. SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, PCIT-1, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

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

condonation of delay of 324 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. 2.6 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record including the judgement cited by the respective parties. Brief facts of the case are that initially the assessment order was passed by the AO on 29-06-2019. Subsequently, the said order

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 SAHAKARI KRAYA VIKRAYA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 5(2), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

Bench: The Registry On 30-06-2025. By Way Of First Mentioned Appeal, Assessee Has Challenged Order Dated 18-03-2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby Appeal Filed By Assessee Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-03-2021 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Been Dismissed, As Not 2

144B of the Act came to be uploaded 237 days after the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days. 12. Ld. CIT(A) took into consideration that what to say proving of sufficient cause for condoning of delay, assessee had not submitted any application seeking condonation of delay of the said delay, in filing of each appeal. 5 ITANO

JAIPUR SAHAKARI KRYA VIKRAYA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Registry On 30-06-2025. By Way Of First Mentioned Appeal, Assessee Has Challenged Order Dated 18-03-2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby Appeal Filed By Assessee Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-03-2021 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Been Dismissed, As Not 2

144B of the Act came to be uploaded 237 days after the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days. 12. Ld. CIT(A) took into consideration that what to say proving of sufficient cause for condoning of delay, assessee had not submitted any application seeking condonation of delay of the said delay, in filing of each appeal. 5 ITANO

SH. RAJESH GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, ALWAR, ALWAR

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 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 raising therein following grounds of appeal. Ground 1 :The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in holding that there exists no sufficient or good reason for condoning alleged inordinate delay

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

delay of 178 days in filing the appeal 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. 4. Brief facts of the case is that in this case notice

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

delay of 178 days in filing the appeal 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. 4. Brief facts of the case is that in this case notice

M/S VXA GLOBAL LLP,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(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)

144B of the Income Tax Act being illegal, excessive and without authority of law. 4) The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Order of AO making addition by framing various incorrect observations on surmises and conjectures and without providing the complete statements of the various persons and other documents/ evidences/material relied upon

SHRI PADAM PRABHU JAIN AUSHDHALAYA VIKAS SAMITI,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

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

condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["12AB", "80G", "144B", "10(23C)"], "issues": "Whether the rejection of applications for registration under Section 12AB and recognition under Section 80G was justified, and whether the delay

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)

144B of the Act was invalid for want of sanction under section 151. Section 151 pertains to sanction for issue of notice under section 148 and section 148A. 20. In the given situation, when AR for the applicant has candidly pleaded that he was under the bonafide impression that for raising such a legal ground no cross-objection was required

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the\nIncome Tax Act, [ for short \"Act\"] by National Faceless Assessment Unit [ for\nshort AO ].\n2.\nAt the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 02 days in\nfiling of the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee\nfiled an application for condonation

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)

delay in filing of the appeal before ld. 4 Sh. Radheshyam Meena vs. ITO CIT(A) deserved to be condoned, but, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal holding the same to be barred by limitation. 6. As noticed above, the assessment order was passed for the assessment year 2014-15, under the provisions of Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section 144B of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the Assessment Unit, Income\nTax Department.\n\n2. Since the issue is involved in the Revenue's appeal and cross\nobjection of the assessee are interconnected, we dispose of this by this\nconsolidated order.\n\n3. Revenue has preferred appeal on the following grounds: -\n\n“1. Whether

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

section 143(3) & 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] passed by the DCIT, Circle – 2, Kota for one year and for two year by the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department [ for short AO]. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 1007 to 1009/JP/2025 for A.Ys

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

KALU JAT,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condoned the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and present submissions before the AO and CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["147", "144", "144B