KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

VI-A under the heading “C.-\r\nDeductions in respect of certain incomes” (which includes deduction under\r\nsection 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due\r\ndate specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been\r\nintroduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would

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. The ld. AR of the assessee also argued that considering the fact that herein this case the beneficiary are the general public so there is no share of beneficiaries whether known or unknown as the assessee is trust. Thus, charging the assessee as per the provisions of section 164(1) as held by the ld. CIT(A) is incorrect

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 :

9. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee considering the Rajasthan High Court the ld. CIT(A) ought to have consider the peitition for condonation of delay. The entire proceeding are without territorial jurisdiction and without following the mandatory statutory process. The ld. CIT(A) while having

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 :

9. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee considering the Rajasthan High Court the ld. CIT(A) ought to have consider the peitition for condonation of delay. The entire proceeding are without territorial jurisdiction and without following the mandatory statutory process. The ld. CIT(A) while having

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 :

9. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee considering the Rajasthan High Court the ld. CIT(A) ought to have consider the peitition for condonation of delay. The entire proceeding are without territorial jurisdiction and without following the mandatory statutory process. The ld. CIT(A) while having

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 :

9. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee considering the Rajasthan High Court the ld. CIT(A) ought to have consider the peitition for condonation of delay. The entire proceeding are without territorial jurisdiction and without following the mandatory statutory process. The ld. CIT(A) while having

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

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

9] [Matter remanded] Shilpaben Nileshbhai Gami vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 169 taxmann.com 595 (Gujarat High Court)[19-11-2024] Section 68, read with section 45 and 254, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit(Condonation of delay) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order upholding capital gain of certain amount to be bogus - Assessee

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

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

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

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 81 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. 4 Dynamic Powertech Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Having admitted the appeal

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

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

delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and\nhence failed to prove the findings to prove Ld. CIT(A) on same.\nAdditional Submission\nIt is respectfully submitted that in the present case the assessee was represented\nby an Authorised Representative who is himself a High Court practitioner. The\nexpectation of candour and accuracy is, therefore, much higher. In spite of this

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (Exemptions) erred in withdrawing, from assessment year 2013-14 onwards, exemption granted to the appellant under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'). 2. That the CIT (Exemptions) erred grossly on facts and in law in treating the Appellant

SHRI RAKESH GARH,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

1,50,000/- u/s 271B imposed by the ld AO. 3. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee has filed the present appeal on 09/12/2020 against the order passed

SHRI RAKESH GARG,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

1,50,000/- u/s 271B imposed by the ld AO. 3. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee has filed the present appeal on 09/12/2020 against the order passed