MEHAR CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 4.0 The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non maintainable since no order u/s 143(1) was filed. Further

RAJESH JASOTANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

230/- as claimed u/s 54 of the Act. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the denial of the AO of the deduction of the claimed by the appellant u/s 54 of the Act up to Rs.13,22,020/-. The 2 ITA No. 286/JP/2017. Shri Rajesh Jasotani, Jaipur

RAJ RISHI BHARTRIHARI MATSYA UNIVERSITY ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALWAR

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that Id. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C) (vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

delay of 178 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. 4. Brief facts of the case is that in this case notice

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

delay of 178 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. 4. Brief facts of the case is that in this case notice

RASTOGI SEGMA FURNITECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2) , JAIPUR

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

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

delay of 91 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. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assesseefiled its return

PANKAJ MANI KULSHRESHTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

condone the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal by the assessee 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 was prevented by sufficient cause. 4 Sh. Panka Mani Khulshrestha vs. ITO 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal

BLOSSOM,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e.. 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

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

condoning the delay, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA No. 1007/JP/2025 for A.Y 2017-18 may be taken as the lead case for discussions, and on this aspect of the matter ld. DR has not raised any West Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO objection. Accepting this consensus, we proceed

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

delay of 53 days in filing the cross objection 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. 6 Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 20.03.2019. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 30 days in filing of the present appeal by the revenue. In support revenue filed a petition for condonation

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 20.03.2019. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 30 days in filing of the present appeal by the revenue. In support revenue filed a petition for condonation

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 20.03.2019. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 30 days in filing of the present appeal by the revenue. In support revenue filed a petition for condonation

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)

delay of 14 days is condoned. 4 JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY VS CIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 4.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, brief facts of the case are the assessee society is registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1958 w.e.f. 07.09.1999 (PB 22) with the main objective of imparting education (PB 23-29). It is registered

INTEGRAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

230 ITR 288. • CIT vs. Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. (Mad) 324 ITR 71. Hence, the findings of the Assessing were confirmed. Against the said findings, the assessee is now in appeal before us. ITA No. 809/JP/2015 & 1075/JP/2018 5 Integral Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ACIT/ITO 7. During the course of hearing, firstly regarding the provisions for GSEC

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 5 of Limitation act. Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. 8. That due to all this reason the appeal could not be filed within time. 9. That the contents or averment of application for condonation of delay are true and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit. Place : Date : .05.2025. Deponent VERIFICATION I, Koshal Kishor Sharma S/o Bhanwar

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 5 of Limitation act. Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. 8. That due to all this reason the appeal could not be filed within time. 9. That the contents or averment of application for condonation of delay are true and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit. Place : Date : .05.2025. Deponent VERIFICATION I, Koshal Kishor Sharma S/o Bhanwar

GAU JEEV PARMARTH SEWA SANSTHA,ALWAR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 91 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Society providing medical relief to ill animals and giving medical treatments as per the information received either telephonically or through any other mode, society vehicle reaches at the destitute/injured animal and admit at their place