KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA ,SUMERPUR vs. ITO,, SUMERPUR

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 240 days of the assessee is duly condoned. 3. In the outset, one appeal of the assessee is filed against the appeal order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Act and another appeal against the order which was passed u/s 154 related to rectification of the main appeal order for the impugned assessment year. The issue of both

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

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)

reopened under section 147 on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source on certain payments of interest (u/s 194A) and JCB hire charges (u/s 194C). As there was no response to various statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144/144B on 27.03.2022 determining income at Rs.1

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)

reopening of the assessment. In the case in hand it is evident from the records of the case that the respondent did not furnish the required information till after the assessments for the relevant years were completed. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the stand of the Revenue that the High Court erred

SHILPI GOYAL,NEEMUCH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEAL -2, INCOME TAX OFFICE UDAIPUR

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL. MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing of the two appeals. 8. Arguments heard in all the four appeals, on merits. Files perused. 9. All the appeals are being disposed of by this common order, as common issues on similar facts, except difference in the figures of the amount of additions, are involved, and Ld. AR for the appellant

SHILPI GOYAL,NEEMUCH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing of the two appeals. 8. Arguments heard in all the four appeals, on merits. Files perused. 9. All the appeals are being disposed of by this common order, as common issues on similar facts, except difference in the figures of the amount of additions, are involved, and Ld. AR for the appellant

SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL,NEEMUCH vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing of the two appeals. 8. Arguments heard in all the four appeals, on merits. Files perused. 9. All the appeals are being disposed of by this common order, as common issues on similar facts, except difference in the figures of the amount of additions, are involved, and Ld. AR for the appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JODHPUR vs. PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT, PALI

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section 12A of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that in a case where a trust or institution has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, the benefit

PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT,PALI vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section 12A of the Income-tax Act has been amended to provide that in a case where a trust or institution has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, the benefit

MAHENDRA RATHI,BIKANER vs. ITO, BIKANER

delay in filing appeal is condoned and\nappeal admitted.\n3. Having heard both the sides and perusal of material on record, we find\nthat the Ld. NFAC has rejected the appeal ex parte qua the assessee summarily\nby a non-speaking appeal order without mentioning the factum of service of\nnotices of hearing issued

RAM CHANDRA ANIL KUMAR GOYAK HUF,GEETAYAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME-TAX OFFICE UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

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

reopening of the assessment without considering the facts of the case and without applying his mind. 4. It is on the Facts and Circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO for issue notice o/s 148 was 147 of the IT Act, 1961 which

GAYATRI SHARMA,KELUKHEDA TEH. CHOTI SADRI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

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

reopening of the assessment without considering the facts of the case and without applying his mind. 4. It is on the Facts and Circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO for issue notice o/s 148 was 147 of the IT Act, 1961 which

BABY KUNWAR JHALA,NEEMUCH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

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

reopening of the assessment without considering the facts of the case and without applying his mind. 4. It is on the Facts and Circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO for issue notice o/s 148 was 147 of the IT Act, 1961 which

GAYATRI SHARMA,NEEMUCH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

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

reopening of the assessment without considering the facts of the case and without applying his mind. 4. It is on the Facts and Circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO for issue notice o/s 148 was 147 of the IT Act, 1961 which

BHERULAL NAGDA,KANAKHEDA vs. DY COMMISSION OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

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

reopening of the assessment without considering the facts of the case and without applying his mind. 4. It is on the Facts and Circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO for issue notice o/s 148 was 147 of the IT Act, 1961 which

PUSHKAR NAGDA,KANAKHEDA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

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

reopening of the assessment without considering the facts of the case and without applying his mind. 4. It is on the Facts and Circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO for issue notice o/s 148 was 147 of the IT Act, 1961 which

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 on sale of a plot, in which both the assessees herein are co-owners. 4 The facts relating to the above said issue are stated