SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

22 Tax World 415 (JP) where the filing was delayed because the son of the Managing Director had become victim of some misdeeds committed by the Holigans, particularly when on the similar points in the earlier four years, the appeals were filed in time. In the instant case also, the appeal could not be filed in time because

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

22 Tax World 415 (JP) where the filing was delayed because the son of the Managing Director had become victim of some misdeeds committed by the Holigans, particularly when on the similar points in the earlier four years, the appeals were filed in time. In the instant case also, the appeal could not be filed in time because

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

22 Tax World 415 (JP) where the filing was delayed because the son of the Managing Director had become victim of some misdeeds committed by the Holigans, particularly when on the similar points in the earlier four years, the appeals were filed in time. In the instant case also, the appeal could not be filed in time because

SMT. SARLA SINGHVI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay order u/s 119(2)(b) passed by Ld. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred on facts and in law while charging interest u/s 234A/B/C of Rs. 117392/-. 3. The appellant reserves rights to add/alter/amend/withdrawn any/all ground of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust

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

KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA ,SUMERPUR vs. ITO,, SUMERPUR

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

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

delay for 240 days of the assessee is duly condoned. 3. In the outset, one appeal of the assessee is filed against the appeal order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Act and another appeal against the order which was passed u/s 154 related to rectification of the main appeal order for the impugned assessment year. The issue of both

KAILASH CHANDRA MOONDRA ,SUMERPUR vs. ITO,, SUMERPUR

In the result, ITA No. 334/Jodh/2019 is allowed for statistical purpose and

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

delay for 240 days of the assessee is duly condoned. 3. In the outset, one appeal of the assessee is filed against the appeal order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Act and another appeal against the order which was passed u/s 154 related to rectification of the main appeal order for the impugned assessment year. The issue of both

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

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

condone the delay, and the matter is admitted for adjudication. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of trading in fertilizers and pesticides to its members. The assessee, while filing return of income claimed exemption under section 80P(2)(iv) amount to Rs.3

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

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

NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BHILWARA vs. ITO (EXEMTION), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad168/Jodh/2018 (Assessment Year- 2008-09) Vs Noble Educational Society, The Ito Kuwada Road Behind Sophia (Exemption), School, Suwana Road, Ajmer Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatn5198G

sections 11 and 12 shall be available in respect of any income derived from property held under trust in any assessment proceeding for an earlier assessment year which is pending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration, if the objects and activities of such trust or institution in the relevant earlier assessment year are the same

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

22/ Jodh/22 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2018-19 ) Shri Rohitash Kumar Vs The ITO Shop No. 6C, Anoopgarh Road Ward-4 Raisingh Nagar, Sriganganagar Sriganganagar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. DBPPK 8836 P Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Venkatesh V (JCIT-DR) Date of hearing 31/10/2022 Date of 2/11/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JODHPUR vs. PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT, PALI

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

condonation of delay in submissions of appeal. 2. The appellant trust was created on 26.12.2015 and application for registration u/s 11/12 was made on 20.1.2016. The ld. CIT, Exemption had erred in granting exemption w.e.f 10.6.2016 as against 20.01.2016 being the date of application. 3. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the ground

PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT,PALI vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

condonation of delay in submissions of appeal. 2. The appellant trust was created on 26.12.2015 and application for registration u/s 11/12 was made on 20.1.2016. The ld. CIT, Exemption had erred in granting exemption w.e.f 10.6.2016 as against 20.01.2016 being the date of application. 3. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the ground

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)

22. While evaluating the above disclosure, we find that the respondents seek to assert that at the relevant time the online portal supported a " flawless filing" of Form 10. They further aver that the total filing count of Form 10 between 01 October 2016 to 31 October 2016 was 3687. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the respondents argue