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)

Capital Gain. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining 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)

Capital Gain. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining 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

MAHENDRA RATHI,BIKANER vs. ITO, BIKANER

capital gain tax liability is not at all attracted.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case CIT(A) has ered in incorrectly\ncomputing interest u/s.234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Act.\"\nThere was a delay of 428 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted\nthat the appellant was under treatment of Angioplasty duly supported with

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

UTTAM CHAND SINGHI,SIROHI vs. ITO, WARD, SIROHI

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmishri Uttam Chand Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar, Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L Shri Bhanwar Lal Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3 The common issue urged in both these appeals relate to the issue of adoption of market value as on 01-04-1981 while computing capital gains

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

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

capital gains declared u/s 11 IA and First Year of Deduction claimed u/s 801A/801AB/801AC/801BA'. Ld.AO-NaFAC reached following finding after verification of the issue- 3.4 Reasons for inference drawn that no variation is required on this issue- On perusal of the details/explanation /submission and documents alongwith details of expenses given made by the assessee, the issues are found explained

BHAMASHAH SUNDARLAL DAGA CHARITABLE TRUST,BIKANER vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

condoned the delay looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case. 6. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) ignore the communication which was incumbent upon the CIT(E) to examine the explanation and arrive at conclusion as to whether the explanation was satisfactory, if not satisfactory, has to communicate the assessee in view of 263 ITR page