THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

6. Decision\n6.1 The statement of facts grounds of appeal, and the order\nappealed against, written submissions explanations have been\nthoroughly examined. The central issue for adjudication among\nall the grounds of appeal raised pertains to the sole issue of\ndenying the deduction claimed as per section 80P of the Act\nwhile processing the return of Income under section

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

VIVEK SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1134 & 1135/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Vivek Shiksha Samiti Jobner Road, Kalwar, VIA Jhotwara, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Exemption-1, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTV0361Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gatum Singh Choudhary

6 months and 15 days. The assessee prayed to condone the delay in filling the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and since the revenue has on similar facts allowed the rectification as per provision of section 154 of the Act for A. Y. 2013-14. The assessee should be given a chance to be heard on merits

GULAB BAI,KOTA vs. ITO, INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to\ncosts

6. The moot question before us is whether in the facts and circumstances\nof the case, the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in\nfiling the proposed appeal and to dismiss it as barred by limitation.\n\n9\nITA NO. 320/JP/2024\nGULAB BAI VS ITO, WARD 2(4), КОТА\n7. The law of limitation is founded

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 :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

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 :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

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 :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

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 :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

TANUJ JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-7(2),JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

6. The moot question before us is whether in the facts and circumstances\nof the case, the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in\nfiling the proposed appeal and to dismiss it as barred by limitation.\n7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the\nlegal maxim \"interest reipublicaeut

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

condone the delay as the assessee was vigilant and was prevented by sufficient cause and therefore, we admit this appeal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the sale proceeds from the sale of rural agricultural land as income u/s 69A. 4 Roshal

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. On the facts and circumstances of Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as in facts in not allowing the condonation of delay in filing appeal, even when the assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay duly as per law specifying the reasons of delay. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several 4 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

M.S. MODI AND SONS ,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to\ncosts

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. \"Sufficient cause\" is a condition\nprecedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. After\nhaving gone through different citations of different forums as well as courts, the\nBench has noticed that the Court have time and again held that when mandatory\nprovision is not complied with and that delay

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

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

delay in filing the present appeal is condonable and is hereby condoned. 3 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Nandi International and engaged in import and trading of Glass Chaton, Glass beads and silver jewellery. The assessee filed his return of income on 27/09/2014 declaring

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

condonation of delay of 613 days in filing the appeal.\nHence, the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee before this\ncourt.\n3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.\n4. Admittedly, the assessment order in the present case was\npassed on December 27, 2007 under section 143(3) of the Act,\nassessing income

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

1 SCC 366, their Lordships observed as under: “9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation

A BLISS OF CREATOR SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

6. The moot question before us is whether in the facts and circumstances\nof the case, the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in\nfiling the proposed appeal and to dismiss it as barred by limitation.\n7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the\nlegal maxim \"interest reipublicaeut