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

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

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

201 ITR 325 respectively wherein it is held that filing of audit report in form 10B during the course of assessment proceedings is sufficient compliance of section 12A(b) which has to be considered. So the exemption otherwise available to the assessee trust under section 11 cannot be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing of audit report

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.”

delay was condoned and on merits the appeal had been decided by the first appellate authority. 1.5. The provisions of section 234E and section 200A reads as under : 234E. Fee for defaults in furnishing statements (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

201 (SC) . The Bench of three learned judges in Nagpur Hotel Owners' Assn. (supra) rendered the following pertinent observations:- "6. It is abundantly clear from the wordings of sub-section (2) of Section 11 that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of Section 11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required, under Rule

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

201 days. So, that proper inquiry can be\nconducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant.\nThe assessee prays accordingly.\nThanking You Yours\nFaithfully,\n(Sd/-)\n(Bhoop Singh Poonia)\nAppellant\nEnclosed:\nAffidavit dated 06.03.2025.\n3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone\nthrough the record carefully. In the light of above, if we\nperuse

SHREE DIGAMBER JAIN DHARM PRABHAVANA SAMITI,UDAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMTION), JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

201, Radhika Complex, Dudu Bagh, Loha Mandi, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipru - 302001. Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Shri Mohan Choudhary, Advocate Shri Anil Dhaka, Ld. CIT (DR) 30.06.2025. 07.07.2025. DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: ORDER This appeal by the appellant is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (hereinafter referred