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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(1) disallowing exemption claimed under section 11 which resulted in a demand to be payable by the taxpayer amount of Rs. 13489828. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that appellant is registered u/s. 12A and 80G by the Commissioner as it is engaged in imparting education and running various education institutions. The appellant

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

section 11 and 12 shall apply to the case of the assessee Accordingly no exemption is granted u/s 11(2) of the IT Act for the year under consideration In result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(A). The present appeal filed

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.”

condoned. 1.8. It will also be worthwhile to submit that the Board was also considering the difficulties being faced genuinely by the taxpayers in making such compliance and that the penal provisions under section 234E may be too harsh to be implemented. The penalty of Rs. 200/- for such technical defect was too high, and therefore a Circular was issued

AAMEEN BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 3 days is condoned. 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was initiated due to deposit of cash in the bank I.T.A. No.571/Jodh/2018 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 account. The ld. AO confirmed the addition amount to Rs.20,30,585/- for depositing

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

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

SHREE NAVKAR REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

condonation of delay we admit the appeal to be decided on merits. 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has filed return of income for A.Y 2017-18 electronically on 16.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143