UTTRAKHAND SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.775 to 778/JP/2024 Uttrakhand Samaj 51/117 Sec 5, Pratap Nagar Sanganer, Jaipur cuke Vs. The CIT, Exemption Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATU 6874 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/08/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@D

section 80G of the Act within the period time period of at least six months prior to expiry of period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. Ld. CIT(E) also noted that he did has power to condone such Uttrakhand Samaj vs. CIT (E) delay

GO GRAM ECO FOUNDATION,GOVINDGARH TEHSIL CHOMU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

Section 80G of the Act is a natural corollary; ii. The delay was unintentional and due to genuine difficulties faced by the appellant and ought to have been condoned

PARITRUPTI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

80G(5)(vi) in the case of Go Gram Eco Foundation vs. CIT(E) [ITA No. 504/JP/2023]. The appeal questioned whether the application should be rejected solely due to a delay and whether the CIT(E) has the authority to condone such a delay. The Tribunal observed that while section

RAKSHA,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

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

section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2.1 “1On the fact and in the circumstances of the matter Ld. CIT(E) has grossly erred in rejecting the application made u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Act vide Form 10AB. Ld. CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application merely

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.

80G of the Act. 2. Vide two separate orders of same date i.e. 29.11.2024, Learned CIT(E) rejected both the application for the reasons recorded therein. That is how, the impugned orders are challenged by the applicant trust. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the above said two applications, the applicant Trust presented before this Appellate Tribunal, two separate

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.

80G of the Act. 2. Vide two separate orders of same date i.e. 29.11.2024, Learned CIT(E) rejected both the application for the reasons recorded therein. That is how, the impugned orders are challenged by the applicant trust. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the above said two applications, the applicant Trust presented before this Appellate Tribunal, two separate

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 119(2)(b) as mandated in Para 4(ii) of the said circular, the delay cannot be condoned. 4.9 In view of the above, I am of the considerate view that, since the appellant has filed Form 10B later than due date of filing of income tax return, thus it is not covered by immunity granted by Para

SURAJ NARAYAN PAREEK KSHIKSHA SAMITI,PUSHKAR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former consideration

SAMYAK GYAN PRACHAR PRASAR TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

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

condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. ‘’1. That the appellant, Samyak Gyan Prachar Prasar Trust, had applied for registration under Section 80G

RAJ RISHI BHARTRIHARI MATSYA UNIVERSITY ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALWAR

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that Id. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C) (vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY,ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay for AY 2018-19. 6. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee treated as dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not find any favour from the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised

VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

section 80G(5) was applicable only to newly constructed trust and not to old trust, delay in filing Form No.10AB deserved to be condoned

VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

section 80G(5) was applicable only to newly constructed trust and not to old trust, delay in filing Form No.10AB deserved to be condoned

VED- VACHASPATI SHASTRI CHARITABLE TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal is disposed of and the application u/s 80G of the Act, filed in Form 10AB, is restored to

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. We order accordingly. 8. On merits, as noticed above, ld. CIT(E) held the application u/s 80G of the Act as not maintainable because of the filing thereof after expiry of more than six months period from the commencement of the activities. Learned CIT(E) rejected the application under section

BLOSSOM,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 80G of the Act. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 197 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the 2 Blossom vs. CIT(E) assessee filed an application for condonation

DHYAN YOG GAU-SEVA SOCIETY,DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, 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)

condone the delay and therefore the application filed by the assessee is rejected as non-maintainable for which reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT in case of Bishnupur Public Education Institute 139 Taxman.com 121. 6.1 The Bench noted that section 80G

SHREE DHARM FOUNDATION TRUST ,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

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

section 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals are as under: ITA No.1200/JPR/2024 – u/s 12AA of the Act “1. The Impugned order u/s 12AB of the Act is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction

SHREE DHARM FOUNDATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

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

section 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals are as under: ITA No.1200/JPR/2024 – u/s 12AA of the Act “1. The Impugned order u/s 12AB of the Act is bad in law and on facts, without providing adequate & reasonable opportunity of being heard, being without jurisdiction