UTTRAKHAND SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPURTHE 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 (Accountant Member)

5) of 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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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 10(23C)(vi) specifically lacks provisions to condone delays, section 80G

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed\nfor statistical purpose

5) of section 80G of the Act, it is evident that the\ntime limits prescribed therein is mandatory and commissioner of Income\nTax has no power to condone the delay

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

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)

delay of more than six months should not be considered as violation of section 80G (5)(iii) according to which application under section 80G 5(iii) is to be filed within six months of commencement of activities or six months before expiry of the provisional registration, whichever is earlier." In response of the notice the A/r of the applicant submitted

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

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the Income Tax Department vide order dated 26/06/2023. 2. That the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit due to the reasons explained here

PREM SAMRIDDHI FOUNDATION,BUNDI vs. ITO WARD, BUNDI, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n03/12/2024

condoned the delay of 491 days in filing the appeal, citing the technical glitches faced by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the matter required re-examination by the CIT(E) to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the applicability of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and its registration under the Companies Act.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["80G(5

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 allows deduction to an assessee in computing his total income in respect of donation

SHRI JAIN SHWETAMBER TERAPANTHI VIDYALAYA COMMITTEE,STATION ROAD, PURANI SADAK vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CIT EXEMPTION JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Jain Shwetamber Terapanthi Vidyalaya Committee, Station Road Churu, Rajasthan - 331001 Pan No.:Aaots0584M ...... Appellant Vs. Cit Exemption, Jaipur, Kailash Height, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur ...... Respondent

80G (5) are also fulfilled, to that extent the order of the Ld. CIT (E), Jaipur is absurd. As the same is being passed with a preconceived notion, i.e. keeping in mind the provisions of section 12AB of the Act, whereas the present matter is not for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. 6. Notwithstanding the discussion

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

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 4(i) of Circular No. 10/2019. Further, the appellant has also not submitted details of capital

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 80G

SHRI OP DARGAR FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condonation of\ndelay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also\nfiled an affidavit also :-\n“1. That assessee-company is a Section 8 company and filed 4 appeals\non 05.10.2024 against the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT\n(Exemption), Jaipur on rejection of registration u/s. 12A & rejection of\napproval u/s. 80G

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 of delay with following prayers: Vide letter dated 12.03.2024 the assessee contended