SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SIRGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

SHAILENDRA GARG,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

28-03- Dismissed the appeal 213 days Appeal u/s 2024, Ex-parte order in confirming the action 271(1)© spite of providing of the AO who invoked sufficient opportunities to provision of section the assessee to explain 271(1)©of the Act and the issue delay of 610 not condoned

RAGHAV DANGAYACH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1) JPR, JAIPUR

15. As a result, the application seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed

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

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical

28-03- 2024, Ex-parte order in spite of providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee to explain the issue Dismissed the appeal confirming the action of the AO who invoked provision of section 271(1) of the Act and delay of 610 not condoned

SHRI SHANIDEV CHARITABLE TRUST,AJMER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeals are hereby dismissed being barred by limitation

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Jaipur By Way Of Two Application I.E. One U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act ( In Short “The Act”) To Seek Its Registration. Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust, Ajmer. Another Application Were Also Presented By The Applicant Before Learned Cit(E) Seeking Approval U/S 80G Of The Act.

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

SHRI SHANIDEV CHARITABLE TRUST,AJMER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeals are hereby dismissed being barred by limitation

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Jaipur By Way Of Two Application I.E. One U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act ( In Short “The Act”) To Seek Its Registration. Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust, Ajmer. Another Application Were Also Presented By The Applicant Before Learned Cit(E) Seeking Approval U/S 80G Of The Act.

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

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

section 139- which needs to be interpreted in wider connotation) and thus delay in filing of Audit Report is condoned by CBDT Circular; - Assessee is holding valid registration certificate u/s 12AA, and there is no allegation of any violation of conditions enumerated u/s 12AA(3), therefore assessee is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 11. - Assessee, during assessment proceedings itself filed

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 :

condonation the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). D. Rebuttal and factual clarification on the Arguments of the Ld. DR taken during hearing and submission on merits of the case 18. The Ld. DR during the hearing has alleged misrepresentation of the facts by the Appellant, which is specifically denied. The Ld. DR has rather misinterpreted