SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone such delay on authorities concerned. In the case of Jaya Educational Trust v. Dy. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 225/191 ITD 107 (Chennai - Trib.), ITAT held that where assessee had filed return of income within due date specified under section 139(4) and also filed Form No. 10 electronically before completion of assessment, assessee could not be denied exemption under

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

condone the delay and proceed to\ndecide the appeal on merit.\n4. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal. In\nGround No.1, grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in confirming the addition of Rs.25 lacs made by the\nAO on account of disallowance of excess stock claimed by the\nassessee.\n5. The brief facts

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay has been condoned on verification. (Pg No. 34-38 of PB) 3. Moreover, the form no 10 does not contain any such column to provide itemised detail of investments made u/s 11(5). In evidence, copy of form 10 downloaded from Income Tax Portal enclosed at pg no. 39-41 of PB. Firstly: The very basic ground for addition

SEEMA PANDIT,MOUNT AU vs. ITO, WARD, MOUNT ABU

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

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

condonation of delay before the CIT(A) on the ground of illness of her husband and bad condition faced by her family. (ii). As the assessee could not attend the hearing before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay as well as for non- prosecution. (iii). The assessee is a primary school teacher

UTTARAKHAND VIKAS SAMITI,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleuttarakhand Vikas Samiti Vs. Dcit, Cpc/Ito, Ward Exemption, 117, Main Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aaatu 3935 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A) Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 24.01.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs. 6,00,000/- Without Appreciating Facts Of The Case.

addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- without appreciating facts of the case. 2. Having heard both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected appeal of the assessee by observing that the provisions of Section 143(1) makes it clear that the CPC had the power to compute the total income (or loss

KAMAL KISHORE,SUJANGARH vs. ITO WARD-3 CHURU, CHURU

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

addition may kindly be deleted in full. 4. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A,234B and 234C.. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Sarda Devi Chechani vs. ITO Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 5. Since, the facts of all the cases

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Sarda Devi Chechani vs. ITO Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 5. Since, the facts of all the cases

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Sarda Devi Chechani vs. ITO Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 5. Since, the facts of all the cases

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

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

addition of interest levied under the provisions of section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in not condoning the delay

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

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

addition of interest levied under the provisions of section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in not condoning the delay

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

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

addition of interest levied under the provisions of section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in not condoning the delay

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

delay of three 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. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause and therefore, the appeal is admitted and the same is decided based

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

delay of 20 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. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause and therefore admitting the appeal we are proceeded to deal with the merits

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

addition made of Rs. 7200000. 4. That the appellant appeals for allowing consequential relief from interest charged u/ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal at or before the time of hearing. 6.That the appellant prays

EKKADAM SEVA SANSTHAN,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Income-tax Act, 1961 was rejected. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 20 days for which the assessee had filed the condonation application for condoning the delay. 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee

LOKESH GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits 4. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: "1. Notice uw/s 148 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. In the reasons recorded there is no escapement of income. Reasons are to verify the transactions. 3. Addition

LOKESH GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits 4. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: "1. Notice uw/s 148 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. In the reasons recorded there is no escapement of income. Reasons are to verify the transactions. 3. Addition