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

GULAB BAI,KOTA vs. ITO, INCOME TAX

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

9 (2), CPC and Section 5\nof the Limitation Act, thus categorically demonstrating that they are to\nbe decided on similar grounds.”\nAfter evaluating the facts of the present case, the Bench is conscious of the facts\nthat the Courts should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the\napplication for condonation of delay. However, the Court while allowing

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

9) such view had merits in the appeal and same was liable to be considered for taking a decision about condonation of delay, which has not been done . There have been various precedents of Hon`ble courts wherein the matter relating to condonation of delay was challenged and in most of the cases the courts have held the following propositions

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

9 (2), CPC and Section 5\nof the Limitation Act, thus categorically demonstrating that they are to\nbe decided on similar grounds.”\nAfter evaluating the facts of the present case, the Bench is conscious of the facts\nthat the Courts should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the\napplication for condonation of delay. However, the Court while allowing

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

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

9 (2), CPC and Section 5\nof the Limitation Act, thus categorically demonstrating that they are to\nbe decided on similar grounds.”\nAfter evaluating the facts of the present case, the Bench is conscious of the facts\nthat the Courts should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the\napplication for condonation of delay. However, the Court while allowing

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

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

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

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

condoned.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961", "Section 143(1) of the Act", "Section 13 of Information Technology Act 2000", "Sections 282/282A of Income Tax Act", "Rule 127/127A of the Income Tax Rules", "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963", "Section 3 of the Limitation Act", "Order 22 Rule 9 (2), CPC" ], "issues": "Whether the delay

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

1 RCR\n(Civil) 892 had analyzed the broad principles for condonation of\ndelay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as under (page\n365 of 55 VST):\n\"From the above, it emerges that the law of limitation has been\nenacted which is based on public policy so as to prescribe time-\nlimit for availing of legal remedy

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Reiterating the principles of law laid down in Shakuntala Devi Jain (supra) and State of W.B. vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC 366, their Lordships observed as under: “9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay

CLASSIC AIRCON,INDIA vs. DCIT CPC, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: Cit(A)-Iii, Jaipur Was Rejected /Dismissed Vide Order Dated 20.09.2021 & Same Was Served Upon The Appellant On 20.09.2021 Itself Through E-Mail. Classic Aircon Vs. Dcit, Cpc

condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That both the lower authorities have erred in law well as in facts of the case in considering delayed payment of Employee’s share of EPF/ESI subject to 36(1)(va) and thereby made/upheld addition to the tune of Rs. 2,06,688/-. Classic Aircon vs. DCIT, CPC 2. That

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

delay of\n18 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned, having\nregard to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nCollector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471\n(SC).\n5.\nAppeal has also been argued on merits. Assessee-appellant\nhas raised following grounds: -\n\"1.\nThat order of Learned

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 5.1 The Bench further during the course of hearing observed that Ground No. 1 to 3 of the assessee in this appeal of the assessee are regarding disallowance of employee’s contribution of PF and ESI deposited belatedly but before due date of filing of return of income U/s 139(1