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

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 appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 18 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT 20. 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

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 appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 18 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT 20. 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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay from the Competent Authority hence, this Circular does not come to its rescue. From the combined reading of section 139(4A) and section 12A(1)(ba) and the explanatory Budget Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2017 as the appellant has filed the return of income beyond the due date (the due date was 15.02.2021 and the date

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is 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

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is 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

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is 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

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..

delay of 208 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. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “i). That

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