MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

condone the delay of 1402 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Now we come on the merits of the appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has mainly aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made U/s 68 of the Act amounting

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

condone the delay, as your acceptance can render natural justice to the assessee. There remains no ground for the denial of the acceptance of appeal of the assessee as quantum appeal is already decided in favour of assessee by CIT Appeals, Jodhpur." 10. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the revenue authorities

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

14-41 of PB. On verification of the itemised detail of investments made in the mode given u/s 11 (5), the Ld CIT (Exemptions) condoned the delay in filing of the Form 10 vide order no. ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1027179655(1) dated 29.05.2020 thru his order u/s 119(2)(b) of the act. Copy of order enclosed

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, 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

UTTARAKHAND VIKAS SAMITI,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleuttarakhand Vikas Samiti Vs. Dcit, Cpc/Ito, Ward Exemption, 117, Main Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aaatu 3935 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A) Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 24.01.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs. 6,00,000/- Without Appreciating Facts Of The Case.

section 11(2) of the Act. Based on this observation the solitary ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed.” 10. In the present case, the assessee fulfils the conditions prescribed as per CBDT circular no. 07/2018 though the assessee could not file the form no. 10 within the stipulated time. The CBDT also mentioned that where there

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

condonation of delay and appeal prior to amendments also did not make imposition of late fees by Sec. 234E to be ultra vires. The Writ Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.” We note that thus the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in this case has upheld the Constitutional validity of the provision of section 234E