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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

15-10-2021) as referred to in section 44AB of the Act, failing which the provisions of section 11 and 12 would not be applicable. The assessee filed Form 10-B on 18-02-2021 and hence there was admittedly a delay in filing Form 10-B beyond the due prescribed date. However, we observe that the CIT(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

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

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

15% of the income can be accumulated indefinitely by the trust or institution, 85% of income can only be accumulated for a period not exceeding 5 years subject to the conditions that such person submits the prescribed Form 10 to the Assessing Officer in this regard and the money so accumulated or set apart is invested or deposited

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

delay of 20 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme 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 and therefore admitting the appeal we are proceeded to deal with the merits

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

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

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

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

15. However, considering the legal position that there is no power to condone the delay in filing an application under section IO(23C) of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone the delay. However, this Court is inclined to give appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application

SEEMA PANDIT,MOUNT AU vs. ITO, WARD, MOUNT ABU

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

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

Section under which notice issued Date of Remarks issuance 1. 142(1)/143(2) 18-08-2010 None attended 2. 142(1)/143(2) 20-08-2010 None attended Seema Pandi vs. ITO. 3. 142(1)/143(2) 07-01-2011 None attended 4. 142(1)/143(2) 31-01-2011 None attended 5. 142(1)/143

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

ROHITASH KUMAR ,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-4,, SRIGANGANAGAR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

15, 2020 till Feb. 28, 2022 for the purposes of limitation. Hence, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to condone the delay for which the ld. DR did not raise any objection. In this view of the matter, the delay is condoned. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income

ACME INDUSTRIES,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

15, 2020 till Feb. 28, 2022 for the purposes of limitation. Hence, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to condone the delay for which the ld. DR did not raise any objection. In this view of the matter, the delay is condoned. 3.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

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

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 1

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