SHRI OP DARGAR FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 80G of the Income Tax Act [in short, hereinafter “the Act”]. 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 164 days in filing of the appeals by the assessee for which Shri OP Dargar Foundation vs. CIT(E) the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation

SHRI OP DARGAR FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1243 & 1244/JPR/2024 Shri OP Dargar Foundation P. N D-29, Janpath Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The CIT-Exemption, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABGCS7209B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Meenakshi Vohar, (C.A.) (Th. V.C.), Shri Kamlesh Kumar Meena (CIT) Proxy DR a lqu

Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act [ in short, hereinafter the Act]. 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 164 days in filing of the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation

SHRI OP DARGAR FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: ITAT, then assessee-company engage a counsel and prepare appeal & filed the same before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 05.10.2024 (i.e. with a delay of 164 days). 4. Therefore, the non compliance was due to confusion of non- clarity of about the exact and right legal remedy available to the trust viz. re-apply or appeal. Therefore, the same can be treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable c

Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act [ in short, hereinafter the Act]. 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 164 days in filing of the appeals by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed applications for condonation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in treating the assessee as representative assessee while it should be treated as AOP, because it has derived income which

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), 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)

164(2) only the part of income not exempt u/s 11 due to applicability of section 13(1)(c) can be charged to tax at MMR but exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied in toto. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 28,51,300/- by holding that

SITA RAM SAINI,CHOMU, JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay should receive a liberal construction as to advance the substantial Justice.. 3. Now coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has 5 Sh. Sita Ram Saini vs. ITO challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (appeals), NFAC with

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delays so occurred in respect of both the appeals of the assessee are condoned. 3.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.826/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

delay of 58 days filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,68,02,540/-. The assessee company claimed deduction

JAN SWABHIMAN MANCH,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

23. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose, and the application u/s 80G is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E), for applicant in accordance with law

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

164, Jaipur Heritage, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKAJ8295M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 09/09/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar

JAN SWABHIMAN MANCH,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

23. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of for statistical purpose, and the application u/s 80G is restored to the files of Learned CIT(E), for applicant in accordance with law

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

164, Jaipur Heritage, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKAJ8295M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 09/09/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar

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

164(2)—Total amount was treated as income by invoking\r\nSection 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as\r\ndonation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69А—CIT(A)\r\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such\r\nas with regard to claim

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay are\ntrue and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit.\nPlace : Jaipur\nDate: 14.04.2025\nSd/-\nMaya Kumari\n( Deponent )\nVERIFICATION\nI, Maya Kumari W/o Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Aged years, R/o\n167, Om Shiv Colony Shyam Marg Jhotwara Jaipur Rajasthan 302012, do\nhereby verified that the contentions of above para

SHRI RAM GOUSALA SAMITI,SIKAR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay are allowed and the both appeals are admitted. 7. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that in order to comply with requirement of registration of the appellant trust under the Act, 1959, appropriate application was filed before the competent authority, whereby the applicant trust stands registered under the said Act, as per certificate dated

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

164 (CAL.) in which Hon’ble HC has held as under: ‘Section 250(4), read with section 251, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)/Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of - Assessment year 1982-83 - Whether, on facts stated under heading 'Best judgment assessment', Commissioner (Appeals) had power and jurisdiction for computing total income on basis of past records

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

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay as observed by the registry. 5. Now coming to the merits of the appeal. The brief facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A of the IT. Act, 1961 at the business premises of the assessee company was carried out on 02.08.2017 which was subsequently converted into search and seizure action operation as per provision

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether