UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

section 11 and 12 shall apply to the case of the assessee Accordingly no exemption is granted u/s 11(2) of the IT Act for the year under consideration In result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(A). The present appeal filed

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

119(2)(b) should be construed liberally, High Court) particularly in matters of entertaining application seeking condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

119(2)(b) should be construed liberally, High Court) particularly in matters of entertaining application seeking condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Charitable Trust v. ITO(E) (2021) 278 Taxman 148 (Guj.). He also placed reliance on ITAT Pune's decision in Akshay Devendra Birari v. DCIT [ITA No. 782/PUN/2024] and the Jodhpur Bench’s ruling in Shiv Sai Sewa Samiti v. ITO, Ward-1, Jalore [ITA No. 137 & 138/Jodh/2023]. 4. Per contra, the Department relied upon the judgment of the Delhi

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

SMT. SARLA SINGHVI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

119(2)(b) passed by Ld. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred on facts and in law while charging interest u/s 234A/B/C of Rs. 117392/-. 3. The appellant reserves rights to add/alter/amend/withdrawn any/all ground of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under sec. 12AA

SUKHAD JEEVAN SANSTHAN,CHITTORGARH vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

2. Thereafter, the CBDT vide Circular No. 16/2021 dated 29th August 2021, further extended the date of filing of Form 10AB u/s 10(23C), 12A, 35(1)(ii)/(iia)/(iii) or 80G, which was required to be filed on or before 30th June 2021 upto 31st March 2022 and similarly for application for registration or approval