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

153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri\r\nService Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 468 (Chandigarh-\r\nTrib.), the ITAT held that the enabling provisions of sub- clause (v) of section\r\n143(1) providing for disallowance of deduction under section 80P due to late\r\nfiling of return having been introduced by Finance

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

B, 80-IC, 80-ID, or section 80-IE if the\nreturn is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-\nsection (1) of section 139, or\n(vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A\nor Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total\nincome in the return\nProvided that no such adjustments

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 :

b) Burden of Proof in Delay Condonation • Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 – Applicant must approach with clean hands and show bona fide reasons; suppression disentitles relief (Paper Book Page No.22 to 32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper Book

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 :

b) Burden of Proof in Delay Condonation • Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 – Applicant must approach with clean hands and show bona fide reasons; suppression disentitles relief (Paper Book Page No.22 to 32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper Book

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 :

b) Burden of Proof in Delay Condonation • Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 – Applicant must approach with clean hands and show bona fide reasons; suppression disentitles relief (Paper Book Page No.22 to 32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper Book

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 :

b) Burden of Proof in Delay Condonation • Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 – Applicant must approach with clean hands and show bona fide reasons; suppression disentitles relief (Paper Book Page No.22 to 32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper Book

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.” 10.6 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.” 10.6 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.” 10.6 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the\ncompletion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.\nThus, the notice issued by the Ld. AO and the proceedings concluded\nthereafter was illegaland non-curable u/s-292BB of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 as 124(3) do not validate the order issued u/s 201(1)/201(1A).\nHence, considering the facts

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Delay condoned.\nHaving regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in\nthe matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.\nPending application(s) shall stand disposed of.\"\n10.6 Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs.\nAnuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

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

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

b) Burden of Proof in Delay Condonation\n• Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649\nApplicant must approach with clean hands and show bona fide reasons;\nsuppression disentitles relief (Paper Book Page No.22 to 32).\n• Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal\napproach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

delay. Based on the reasons advanced the\ndelay caused for 13 days in filling the appeal is condoned in the interest of\nequity and justice. However, the Department should be vigilant in filing the\nappealsin time in future.\n3. First of all, we take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.\n469/JP/2024 & C.O.No. 7/JP/2024 for adjudication.\n5\nITA

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone\nthe delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before us but with a cost of Rs.\n5,000/- to be deposited into the Prime Minister Relief Fund to be\ndeposited by the assessee when the assessee apply for the appeal effect of\nthis order.\n\n4.\nBrief facts of the Case are that the assessee had filed

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

B) any other insurer and approved by the Insurance Regulatory\nand Development Authority established under sub-section (1) of section\n3 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (41\nof 1999); (ii) any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for\nservices rendered, where such sum would not have been payable to\nhim as profits

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

b. Any other order, which this Hon'ble ITAT deems fit and proper, be also passed in favour of applicant assessee.” Based on the above contention ld. AR of the assessee prayed to take sympathetic view in the interest of justice. 3.1 Ld. DR submitted that the reasons advance are not sufficient to condone the delay. But at the same

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

153A and 153C, in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income which was found to have escaped assessment other than through incriminating material, the assessing officers would be entitled to reassess such income in terms of Section 147/148 read with section 150. (iii) That the Assessing Officer, may if found necessary initiate fresh

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

153A and 153C, in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income which was found to have escaped assessment other than through incriminating material, the assessing officers would be entitled to reassess such income in terms of Section 147/148 read with section 150. (iii) That the Assessing Officer, may if found necessary initiate fresh