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 :

32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper Book Page No. 33 to 35). (c) Discretion is Equitable and Cannot be Misused • Union of India v. Ashok Kumar (2005) 8 SCC 760 – Discretion to condone delay cannot be exercised in favour of a party acting

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 :

32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper Book Page No. 33 to 35). (c) Discretion is Equitable and Cannot be Misused • Union of India v. Ashok Kumar (2005) 8 SCC 760 – Discretion to condone delay cannot be exercised in favour of a party acting

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 :

32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper Book Page No. 33 to 35). (c) Discretion is Equitable and Cannot be Misused • Union of India v. Ashok Kumar (2005) 8 SCC 760 – Discretion to condone delay cannot be exercised in favour of a party acting

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 :

32). • Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) – Liberal approach applies only when sufficient cause is shown truthfully (Paper Book Page No. 33 to 35). (c) Discretion is Equitable and Cannot be Misused • Union of India v. Ashok Kumar (2005) 8 SCC 760 – Discretion to condone delay cannot be exercised in favour of a party acting

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

delay of 21 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 4. Since common issues involved, in all the appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common order. First, we take up Department’s appeal in ITA No. 275/JP/2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:- “(a) Whether

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)

32. Moreover, the High Court, in the facts of this case, has not found it fit to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of condoning the delay. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the discretion so exercised by the High Court for the reasons recorded. First, the claimants were negligent in pursuing the reference and then in filing

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

32 of the Constitution and what can be struck down is not the\nprovision contained in Section 5(7A) of the Act but the order passed thereunder which\nmay be mala fide or violative of these fundamental rights. This challenge of the vires\nof Section 5(7A) of the Act, therefore, fails.\"\n31 We may also refer to the instructions

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

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

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)

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decisionof 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. 3.1 Apropos Ground of appeal of the assessee, the facts as emerges from

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoning the delay. The individual grounds of appeal are discussed here under- Grounds of Appeal 1. That In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee simply on the ground of alleged non compliance of opportunity granted by him whereas the appeal required

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)

condonation of delay wherein the Bench does not find any sufficient and reasonable cause for late filing the appeal by the assessee. Hence, the same is dismissed. 3.1 Now the Bench feels that the case of the assessee should also be adjudicated upon on merit wherein the crux of the issue in the appeal relates to late deposit of employees

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

delay of 58 days filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,68,02,540/-. The assessee company claimed deduction