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 :

section Year Impugned order was under which the passed by the assessment order Commissioner of was passed by Income Tax, Appeals- DCIT, Central 4,Jaipur [CIT(A)] Circle-1, Jaipur 1 505/JP/2025 2015-16 16.01.2025 153 r.w.s. 144 dt.18.03.2024 506/JP/2025 2016-17 16.01.2025 153 r.w.s. 144 dt. 19.03.2024 3 507/JP/2025 2018-19 16.01.2025 153 r.w.s. 144 dt. 13.03.2024 4 508/JP/2025

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 :

section Year Impugned order was under which the passed by the assessment order Commissioner of was passed by Income Tax, Appeals- DCIT, Central 4,Jaipur [CIT(A)] Circle-1, Jaipur 1 505/JP/2025 2015-16 16.01.2025 153 r.w.s. 144 dt.18.03.2024 506/JP/2025 2016-17 16.01.2025 153 r.w.s. 144 dt. 19.03.2024 3 507/JP/2025 2018-19 16.01.2025 153 r.w.s. 144 dt. 13.03.2024 4 508/JP/2025

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)

delay in filing Form No. 10 should have been condoned by the AO and the id CIT. Further, when the assessee exists solely for educational purposes, therefore, on mere technical issue, the AO should not have made the addition against the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances. in the light of above decision, we are of the view

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)

delay in filing Form No. 10 should have been condoned by the AO and the id CIT. Further, when the assessee exists solely for educational purposes, therefore, on mere technical issue, the AO should not have made the addition against the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances. in the light of above decision, we are of the view

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

condoning part of the delay as discussed in Issue:1 above)\nand being out of period of limitation and the same is hereby not admitted and is\ndismissed in-liminie. Accordingly the grounds of appeal are not required to be\ntaken upon merits.\n5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.\n7. As the assessee

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

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

condone the delay of 240 days in filing of both these appeals. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals as under :- ITA No. 152/JP/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 : “ 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred

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

condone the delay of 240 days in filing of both these appeals. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals as under :- ITA No. 152/JP/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 : “ 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred

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

condone the delay of 240 days in filing of both these appeals. 4. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals as under :- ITA No. 152/JP/2018 A.Y. 2007-08 : “ 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred

JAGDAMBA TOLLES,DHOLPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE BHARATPUR

In the result ground no. 2

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

153 days for which the assessee also prefers the petition for condonation of delay and the contention so raised in that condonation petition reads as under: “Application under Section

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)

condoning the delay of 153 days in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. Therefore, in exercise of powers under section

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

condone the delay 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. 5. The assessee company has submitted an application praying for raising the following additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “That

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

condonation of delay in\r\nfiling the ITR in case of Co-Operative Societies claiming the deduction u/s 80P.\r\nAnd looking to the facts of the present case this circular is also applicable here\r\nand assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P.\r\n8.\r\nHowever the assessee had filed the ROI and Audit report suo-moto

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 4. Both these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue for the same assessment year. The Grounds of appeal raised by each party are as under:- ITA No. 910/JP/2019 (Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 4. Both these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue for the same assessment year. The Grounds of appeal raised by each party are as under:- ITA No. 910/JP/2019 (Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried