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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

34,89,828/-, Aggrieved to it. the appellant is in present appeal. I have carefully considered the facts of the case in the light of submission made by the appellant as well as the order u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the applicable law in this regard. 6.1. Ground of appeal No. 1: During

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 11 (5) of the act has been furnished with proof has been submitted before Ld CIT (Exemptions) and the delay has been condoned on verification. (Pg No. 34-38 of PB) 3. Moreover, the form no 10

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

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

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

delay in filing such Form/ return of income for the assessment year for the assessment year 2016-17,2017-18 & 2018-19. The bench noted that in the order of the ld. CIT(A) at page following non disputed facts emerges: “5.6.3 Under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, it has also been provided that if the Income from

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

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 are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

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 are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

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 are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order

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)

delayed digital filing of Form 10. 29. Quite apart from the above, we also bear in mind the underlying intent of Section 11(2) and the submission of Form 10 in connection therewith which were aspects succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Assn. (2001) 2 SCC 128/[2001] 114 Taxman 255/247

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.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest