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

GLOBAL HEALTH RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE ,UDAIPUR 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 medical college under the name “M/s Pacific Institute of Medical Science” in Udaipur. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 05.3.2001, subject

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

26,23,593/- without considering the condonation of delay order u/s 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 The appellant reserves rights to add/alter/amend/withdrawn any/all ground of the appeal.” 3.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

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay of 487 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for hearing. 7. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the NP rate of 10.16% subject to Depreciation and Interest to third

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay of 487 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for hearing. 7. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the NP rate of 10.16% subject to Depreciation and Interest to third

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

10. The Ld. DR, in his rival submissions although strongly supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts

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)

26. As was noticed by us hereinbefore, prior to those amendments, all that Section 11(2)(a) required was for the assessee to apprise the AO, by a notice in writing, of the purposes for which the income was sought to be accumulated and the mode of its investment or deposit in accordance with Section 11(5). The requirement

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.”

10,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh. No penalty would be imposed if the tax is deposited with fee and interest and the statement is filed within one year of the due date. With addition to these two provisions prescribing fee and penalty respectively, clause (k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso

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

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR vs. BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE , PALI

Accordingly, it is held that the AO rightly added Rs.19,06,200/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act,1961. The appellant fails on this ground. The ground raised by the appellant regarding this issue is, hereby, ...

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-Central Circle-2 Bhanwar Singh Rathore बनाम/ Room No.68, Income Tax Office Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Paota, C-Road Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. Rajasthan-306 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.02/Jodh/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Bhanwar Singh Rathore Acit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Room No.68, Income Tax Office Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Paota, C-Road Vs. Rajasthan-306 401 Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

condone the delay and proceed with the disposal of appeals as well as cross- objection on merits. 1.3 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including written submissions and documents placed in the paper book. The judicial precedents as relied upon during the course of hearing have duly been deliberated upon. Our adjudication