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

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

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

139(9). This clearly shows that provision of section 234E is un judicial. 5. There was no nay opportunity provided to assessee of being heard before imposing the late fee. 6. There was a reasonable cause for delayed filling of statement of tax deducted. 7. The late fee can't be the way of revenue when interest (if Payable

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

139(9). This clearly shows that provision of section 234E is un judicial. 5. There was no nay opportunity provided to assessee of being heard before imposing the late fee. 6. There was a reasonable cause for delayed filling of statement of tax deducted. 7. The late fee can't be the way of revenue when interest (if Payable

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

139(9). This clearly shows that provision of section 234E is un judicial. 5. There was no nay opportunity provided to assessee of being heard before imposing the late fee. 6. There was a reasonable cause for delayed filling of statement of tax deducted. 7. The late fee can't be the way of revenue when interest (if Payable

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

139(9). This clearly shows that provision of section 234E is un judicial. 5. There was no nay opportunity provided to assessee of being heard before imposing the late fee. 6. There was a reasonable cause for delayed filling of statement of tax deducted. 7. The late fee can't be the way of revenue when interest (if Payable

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

139(9). This clearly shows that provision of section 234E is un judicial. 5. There was no nay opportunity provided to assessee of being heard before imposing the late fee. 6. There was a reasonable cause for delayed filling of statement of tax deducted. 7. The late fee can't be the way of revenue when interest (if Payable

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

139(9). This clearly shows that provision of section 234E is un judicial. 5. There was no nay opportunity provided to assessee of being heard before imposing the late fee. 6. There was a reasonable cause for delayed filling of statement of tax deducted. 7. The late fee can't be the way of revenue when interest (if Payable

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

9(1) of the Income-tax Act for the fund or Institution. In case the Form is not submitted Form 10 along with return of income, then the benefit of accumulation would not be available and such income would be taxable at the applicable rate. Further, the benefit of accumulation would also not be available if return of income

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

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 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

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

section 250(6) of the Act, it is the duty of the Commissioner (Appeals) to state a point in dispute, record the reasons and pass a speaking order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 49% and Canara Bank v. V. K. Awasthy