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

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

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)

section 69B of the Act, we would like to reiterate the same for the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case of the assesse: Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery

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)

section 69B of the Act, we would like to reiterate the same for the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case of the assesse: Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery

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)

section 69B of the Act, we would like to reiterate the same for the applicability of the provision in the facts of the case of the assesse: Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 96\ndays in filing the appeals by the assessee in view of the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition\nvs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was\nprevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The fact as culled out from the records is that M/s Shiv

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur has erred in withdrawing the registration u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(Exemptions) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

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

condone the delay of 19 days in\nfiling the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471\n(SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.\n4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee derived

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

SH. KRISHNA KUMAR PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,71,207/- (22,01,721 – 7,30,514), being excess of interest paid over interest received in proprietary

MOHAMMED SHAFI,BUNDI vs. ACIT, C-1, KOTA

18. Consequently, this appeal is also hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

207 & 208/JP/2024 Block Period: 1989-90 to 1999-2000 Mohd. Shafi cuke The ACIT Vs. Chhota Bazar, Charkhiyo Ka Kuwa Circle-1 Bishatiyo Ki Masjid Kota Bundi -323 001 (Raj) LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JIKPS 6949M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Sharma, Assistant from the Office

MOHAMMED SHAFI,BUNDI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

18. Consequently, this appeal is also hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

207 & 208/JP/2024 Block Period: 1989-90 to 1999-2000 Mohd. Shafi cuke The ACIT Vs. Chhota Bazar, Charkhiyo Ka Kuwa Circle-1 Bishatiyo Ki Masjid Kota Bundi -323 001 (Raj) LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JIKPS 6949M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Sharma, Assistant from the Office

M/S PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA HUF,C-42, KALADEEP, VAISHALI NAGAR, GOKUL PATH, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay of 180 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,56,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Act by not accepting the contention of assessee that

RAJASTHAN NURSING COUNCIL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay in filing of the Income Tax Return as there is no delay. Further, we also rely on several judgment on the similar facts, where the benefit of section 11 and 12 were provided. 1. In the case of Conference of Religious India vs. Ward Exemption 1(3), New Delhi, the Honorable Delhi Bench of ITAT has held

SUNIL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 6(5), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay in filing of the Income Tax Return as there is no delay. Further, we also rely on several judgment on the similar facts, where the benefit of section 11 and 12 were provided. 1. In the case of Conference of Religious India vs. Ward Exemption 1(3), New Delhi, the Honorable Delhi Bench of ITAT has held