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

condone the\ndelay of 1988 days in filing the appeal before us.\n4.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a branch of public sector\nbank. A letter no. ITO(TDS)/AJM/2017-18/1297 dated 27.02.2018 was issued by\nthe Income-tax Department calling for the information under section 201 in respect\nof foreign LTC benefits availed

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

condoned either by the statutory authorities or by the courts.\r\nA claim for deduction under section 80P can be entertained even if it is made in a\r\nreturn filed beyond the time permitted under the Act, ignores the perspective that\r\nsees the requirement of the claim for deduction being made in a valid return pre-\r\ncondition

SHRI KIRODI MAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

Appeal is dismissed

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned.” 3. The assessee has filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) against the order dated 10.10.2019 passed in ITA No. 883/JP/2017. 4. The ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee, in response to the MA submitted that the reasons as to why the assessee or the AR of the assessee could

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

condonation of delay\nhas been filed by the assessee wherein it has been specifically submitted that the\ndelay was because of the order was not received proper time.The applicationreads\nas under :-\n\"Along with the order of CIT(A), Alwar, as attached in our enclosures to the appeal filed\nbefore Hon'ble Jaipur Benches of ITAT, also contains the copy

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay are\ntrue and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit.\nPlace : Jaipur\nDate: 14.04.2025\nSd/-\nMaya Kumari\n( Deponent )\nVERIFICATION\nI, Maya Kumari W/o Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Aged years, R/o\n167, Om Shiv Colony Shyam Marg Jhotwara Jaipur Rajasthan 302012, do\nhereby verified that the contentions of above para

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)

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been

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)

condone the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before us. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16 for the reason that the assessee was having no taxable income in India originally. However, he has been

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

delay in filing the form no. 36 is condoned. 5. As regards the decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, there is no dispute that the appeal filed against the deceased assessee is not covered under the provisions of section 292B

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.” 10.6 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.” 10.6 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.” 10.6 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Delay condoned.\nHaving regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in\nthe matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.\nPending application(s) shall stand disposed of.\"\n10.6 Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment in case of PCIT vs.\nAnuj Bansal [(2024) 466 ITR 251] affirmed the decision of ITAT