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)

2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Learned AO by not considering that the surplus for the Financial Year 2010-11 had been duly invested in accordance with Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The action

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)

2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Learned AO by not considering that the surplus for the Financial Year 2010-11 had been duly invested in accordance with Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The action

SHRI RAKESH GARH,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby 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. The Registry is directed to list the matter in due course. 13. Now we take

SHRI RAKESH GARG,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby 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. The Registry is directed to list the matter in due course. 13. Now we take

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

253(1)(c)—Name of Chartered Accountant was mentioned in petition—Counsel could not have conjured up name of Chartered Accountant—Not only period of delay has to be taken in account but also quality of explanation, the legal assistance, if any, sought and rendered to litigant, and detriment that condonation of delay would cause to the opposing party—Assessee

RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [\nhere in after referred as \"Act\"] by ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur.\n2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following\ngrounds:-\n“1. That the learned CIT appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on\nground the appeal barred by limitation while the appeal preferred in\npaper form on 25th

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

2) TMI 1068 Condonation of delay - bonafide mistake at the end of the chief accountant - delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner - Held that:- Sub-section 5 of Section 253

PALAS GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n5. The appellant prays for leave to add, to amend, to delete, or modify the all\nor any grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal.\n3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of\n344 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee

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

253(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with\nsection 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.\nMost Respectfully Showeth :\n1. That the appellant is filing the present appeal against the order dated\n11.06.2019 passed by the Hon'ble CIT (A) in connection with the demand\nraised under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 153 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “On 16.03.2022, I received the order of Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, in my case for assessment year

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

253(5), if there is sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, Hon'ble ITAT may condone such delay. In the above legal and factual background it is submitted that preparation for national level events and attending such national level events of Digambar Jains was sufficient cause for not filing appeal within the stipulated time by Digambar Jain Mandir

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 143(1)(a)(iv). 2 SHRI BHANU PRAKASH BANSAL VS ITO,WARD 2(3), KOTA (ii) the said amount has been paid before due date of filing of return and thus cannot be added to income in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. SBBJ 99 DTR 131 and CIT vs. Jaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

253 ITR 798 (SC) (v) Collector, Land & Acquisition v/s Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation

AO (SC), AVVNL, SIKAR,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condonation of delay in Filing Anneal under Section 250 of the I.T. Act. With reference to the above captioned matter, the applicant/appellant most humbly begs to submit the following reasons for your Honour's kind perusal: 1. That original appeal documents were filled on date 30/11/2018 with the honorable office. 2. That the delay in filing of Appeal

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

253(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filing of appeal Hon'ble Sir(s), The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of Appeal for the following reason: 1. That the Id. PCIT (Central), Jaipur passed his order on 17.03.2021 which was served upon

MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 220 days 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. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched

BHIM SINGH,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 318 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause 10 Bhim Singh vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Jaipur for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Now, coming

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) /NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of issuing notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without obtaining proper sanction u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) /NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

section 253(3) of the Act on the reasons which were beyond my control, in support of the above facts an affidavit duly signed and Notarised is enclosed herewith. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the delay caused on the above reasons may kindly be condoned in submitting the appeal, the appeal may kindly be granted for adjudication