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

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

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 is bad in law and on facts as far as the addition sustained for Rs. 335836,00 is concerned which deserves to be vitiated

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

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. 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.”

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing