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

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

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

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

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

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Based on the observation, he felt that the assessee trust is not fit for registration and registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act earlier is rejected. 2 M/s. Zila Paryawarn Sudhar Samiti, Jhunjhunu, vs CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur 2. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay

GULAB BAI,KOTA vs. ITO, INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to\ncosts

15 |\n22 such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The\napplication is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this\nCourt in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient\ncause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the\ndelay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.”

condone the aforesaid delay. The appeal is, thus, taken up for disposal on merits. 4.3 It is observed that while processing the return of income, the AO has levied minimum alternate tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs.2,47,61,511/- Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant has contended that

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

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

15 |\n22 such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The\napplication is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this\nCourt in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient\ncause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the\ndelay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever

VIVEK SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1134 & 1135/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Vivek Shiksha Samiti Jobner Road, Kalwar, VIA Jhotwara, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Exemption-1, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTV0361Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gatum Singh Choudhary

section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act r.w.s 5 of the Limitation Act. Since, the delay in filing of appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same

M.S. MODI AND SONS ,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to\ncosts

2 SCC_107 = AIR 1987 SC 1353\noriented approach' and cause for the advancement of ‘substantial justice'\ncannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale\nmatters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by\ntaking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.\n17. It must always

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned delay in preferring appeal by assessee and decide case on merits - Held, yes[Paras 23 to 25] [In favour of assessee] In view of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that in the instant case there is sufficient cause with assessee on account of which appeal could not be filed on time. Even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this 10 Lalita Devi Sharma vs. ITO when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay

A BLISS OF CREATOR SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

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

2), CPC and Section 5\nof the Limitation Act, thus categorically demonstrating that they are to\nbe decided on similar grounds.”\nAfter evaluating the facts of the present case, the Bench is conscious of the facts\nthat the Courts should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the\napplication for condonation of delay. However, the Court while allowing such

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

delay of 10 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. 5. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

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 :

15) For the purposes of this section, — (b) "eligible assessee" means, — (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From

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 :

15) For the purposes of this section, — (b) "eligible assessee" means, — (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From

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 :

15) For the purposes of this section, — (b) "eligible assessee" means, — (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From