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

MITHILA DRUGS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradmithila Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-70, Road No.2, Circle-1, 102A, Mewar Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub Madri, Udaipur-313003. City Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaccm6767B Assessee By None (W/S) Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

income were not filed within the time allowed u/s 139(1) , in view of the provisions of section 80, business loss as on 31.03.2015, i.e. Rs.1,42,68,828/-cannot be carried forward. However it was submitted to the CIT(A) that petition for delay condonation

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

M/S. M.M. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,CHURU. vs. ITO, WARD-2,, CHURU.

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the said delay and take up the matter for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2012, reporting total income of Rs. 46,010/- . Assessee is engaged in the business

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

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)

business. Since the assessee was not available at his Sujangarh address, hence no communication from the Income tax department was received. On return to Sujangarh, he came to know that the notices from the income tax were sent on the email id of his counsel at 3 Jaipur and there was no communication with the counsel. On back to Sujangarh

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

SHRI SUMIT GAHLOT,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad176/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Vs Shri Sumit Gahlot, The Ito House No.22, Ganesh Ward-1, Colony, Gulpura, Bhilwara Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bqapg9853L

condone the delay of 169 days in filing of the appeal being caused under the bonafide reasons of compelling circumstances beyond my control of the appellant; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs.2,79,134/- and taxing @ 30% u/s 115BBE on ignoring the fact

VIJAY PURI,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted on merits. 4. Having considered the submission of both the sides and perusal of record, we find that admittedly, the assessee has filed return u/s section 44AD of the Act as he did not maintain the books of the account. The Ld. CIT (A) has summarily rejected the appeal

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

condone the delay, and the matter is admitted for adjudication. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of trading in fertilizers and pesticides to its members. The assessee, while filing return of income

MAHADEVIA CHARITABLE TRUST ,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are set out in brief. The assessee herein is a charitable trust providing educational services. It runs a dental college under the name “Ahmedabad Dental College & Hospital”. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 22.3.1996 subject to certain conditions

RAHUL JOSHI,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), BIKANER

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

business income claimed to be earned on Bitcoin Trading Activity. 2. There is a delay of 191 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted in reasons for delay in filing the appeal that since the appeal effect was given with zero tax liability vide order dated 25.04.2024, within the period of 60 days, appeal

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. RSWM LTD., BHILWARA

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add amends alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing of the appeal. 3. There was a delay in filing revenue appeals due to delay in obtaining authorization for filing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31 DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. RSWM LTD., BHILWARA

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add amends alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time hearing of the appeal. 3. There was a delay in filing revenue appeals due to delay in obtaining authorization for filing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31 DELHI, DELHI vs. RSWM LTD., BHILWARA

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted. 4. Briefly the facts are that the Appellant is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing cotton and synthetic yarns. During the year under consideration, the Appellant has received Interest subsidy amounting to Rs. 36,25, 79,467/- by virtue of Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS). In the original