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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay from the Competent Authority hence, this Circular does not come to its rescue. From the combined reading of section 139(4A) and section 12A(1)(ba) and the explanatory Budget Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2017 as the appellant has filed the return of income beyond the due date (the due date was 15.02.2021 and the date

SUKHAD JEEVAN SANSTHAN,CHITTORGARH vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that Id. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected

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 claimed exemption under section 80P(2)(iv) amount to Rs.3

COUNTRY ART AND CRAFT LLP,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay of 22 days in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond its control. Therefore the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. That the appellate order dt.30.07.2021as passed by the CIT(A), 1. National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi in the appellants case

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 does not contain any such column to provide itemised detail of investments made u/s 11(5). In evidence, copy of form

M/S. PROGRESSIVE AND POPULAR MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHITTORGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.95 & 96/Jodh/2021 (यनिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020)

3. Against the above order of AO, the assessee preferred first appeals before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the AO for the respective assessment years under consideration while dismissing both the appeals of the assessee. 4. Further feeling aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before us. 5. Having heard the parties and perused

M/S. PROGRESSIVE AND POPULAR MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHITTORGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.95 & 96/Jodh/2021 (यनिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020)

3. Against the above order of AO, the assessee preferred first appeals before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the AO for the respective assessment years under consideration while dismissing both the appeals of the assessee. 4. Further feeling aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before us. 5. Having heard the parties and perused

SARVODAYA MINING SERVICES,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 17/12/2018. 2. The appeal was filed with delay for 15 days. The petition for condonation of delay was filed. The ordinate delay for 15days is condoned. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The Ld.AR argued and submitted a paper book containing pages

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

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 in filing returns of income were submitted before the competent authorities and were under consideration till that time. 4. It is further

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

3] That on 27.03.2017, CPC had processed the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act and disallowed the amount accumulated and set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act for non-filing of Form 10 within due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4] That during the year under consideration the appellant had accumulated or set apart

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

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted.\n4.\nBriefly the facts are that the Appellant is inter alia engaged in the\nbusiness of manufacturing and processing cotton and synthetic yarns. During\nthe year under consideration, the Appellant has received Interest subsidy\namounting to Rs. 36,25, 79,467/- by virtue of Technology Upgradation Fund\nScheme (TUFS). In the original

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

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

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

3. There was a delay in filing revenue appeals due to delay in obtaining authorization for filing before the Tribunal. The Ld. CIT (DR) submitted that sometimes such delay happens at the level of competent authority in taking a decision and granting approval for filing appeal which constitutes reason/cause and he requested the same may be condoned

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

3. There was a delay in filing revenue appeals due to delay in obtaining authorization for filing before the Tribunal. The Ld. CIT (DR) submitted that sometimes such delay happens at the level of competent authority in taking a decision and decision and granting approval for filing appeal which constitutes reason/cause and he requested the same may be condoned

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)

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim that interest subsidy receipts were capital receipts ignoring the fact that the assessee had neither claimed it in its return of income nor by way or revised return u/s 139(5) of the income

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)

3. In appeal before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the disallowance was purely technical in nature and not on the merits of the exemption claim. He pointed out that Form 10B had been uploaded by the auditor within time and that the delay was only in verification, which was cured before the return was processed

M/S. KHADI GRAMMODHYOG PRATISTHAN,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(2), BANGALURU / BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3,51,811/- on account of current year’s losses. After looking into the entire factual matrix of the case, I find that assessee’s plea is untenable because losses can only be allowed when the return of income is filed within the stipulated time prescribed by the Act. It is noted from the order