VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

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

Section 147/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 14.12.2016. 2 Vishnu Pareek vs. CIT(A) 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. CIT(A) seriously erred in facts and law in dismissing the appeal on account of delay of 162 days in filing of appeal before him against

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condonation of delay in filing the appeals and submitted that there is inordinate delay of 240 days in filing the appeals and, therefore, the assessee cannot be allowed to file the appeals as and when the assessee thinks or decide to file the appeals ignoring the limitation provided under section 253 (3) of the IT Act. 3. Having considered

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condonation of delay in filing the appeals and submitted that there is inordinate delay of 240 days in filing the appeals and, therefore, the assessee cannot be allowed to file the appeals as and when the assessee thinks or decide to file the appeals ignoring the limitation provided under section 253 (3) of the IT Act. 3. Having considered

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

condonation of delay in filing the appeals and submitted that there is inordinate delay of 240 days in filing the appeals and, therefore, the assessee cannot be allowed to file the appeals as and when the assessee thinks or decide to file the appeals ignoring the limitation provided under section 253 (3) of the IT Act. 3. Having considered

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

TANUJ JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-7(2),JPR, JAIPUR

147 dt. 05.02.2016. The impugned assessment order thus, having been passed absolutely without jurisdiction is void-ab-initio being a nullity in absence of specific sanction of law. The ld. AO having acted contrary to the provisions of law, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decisionof 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. 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal of the assessee, the facts as emerges from

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)

section 144 2 Ishan Arora vs. ITO r.w.s. 147 of the Act by ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur [ for short AO] before him. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without condoning

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 423 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 was prevented by sufficient cause. 8 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from

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

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 of delay u/s 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Sirs, Most respectfully submitted that the income tax assessment of the Trust for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was completed under Section 147

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 of delay u/s 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Sirs, Most respectfully submitted that the income tax assessment of the Trust for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was completed under Section 147

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

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the time limit of 30 days from the date of the order” 4. The Assessing Officer also assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at Rs. 3,46,08,520/-. Issued demand notice and challan. Charge interest u/s 234A, u/s 234B, u/s 234C & u/s 234D of the Act. Issued penalty

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY,ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 Taxmann.com 283 (Gujarat) Wherein the courts have held the assessee trust having substantially satisfied conditions for availing exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961, it should not be denied exemption merely on bar of limitation especially when legislature had conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay in filing Audit Report in Form 10B. We are enclosing herewith

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

condone the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. Based on the guidance of the apex 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. 6. Now coming to the merits of the case, the brief facts, as culled

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

condone the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 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 was prevented by sufficient cause. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derived income

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

condone the delay in filing the appeal before me and decide the appeal herein below. 2. Ground nos. 1 and 1.2 of the appeal raised by the assessee are inter-related and inter-connected and relates to challenging the order of the Id. CIT (A) on the ground that impugned order under section 147/144 dated 19.03.2024 as well