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

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

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.”

24] provisions of section 200A. Therefore, the assessee is liable to pay the due fee u/s 234E and order passed u/s 200A is correct and as per law, Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on merits. There arises no occasion for condonation of delay

SANTOSH SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

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

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining That The Delay Was Caused Due To Non-Receipt Of Communication From The Earlier Representative, Who Neither Apprised The Assessee Of The Appellate Outcome Nor Advised Timely Remedial Action. It Has Been Further Submitted That Upon Obtaining Knowledge Of The Order, The Assessee Promptly Engaged New Counsel & Has Been Diligently Pursuing The Matter. A Prayer Was Made To Condone The Delay In The Interest Of Justice.

condone the delay of 217 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3.1 Turning to the merits of the case, it is observed that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 30.03.2015, determining the total income at Rs.27,24

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

delay is condoned. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31-10-2018 declaring total income at Rs.97,240/- which was processed by the CPC, Banglore on 26-04-2019 determining total income at Rs.15,99,420/- in which an adjustment of Rs.15,02,180/- was made to the return

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

delay is condoned. 3.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 for adjudication. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed the ITR on 25-09-2018 declaring total income at Rs.27,75,370/-. Order u/s 143(1) was passed on 16-10-2019 at assessed income

SHRI SUMIT GAHLOT,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad176/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Vs Shri Sumit Gahlot, The Ito House No.22, Ganesh Ward-1, Colony, Gulpura, Bhilwara Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bqapg9853L

24 /03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 05-06-2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 raising therein following grounds of appeal:- 2 ITA 176/JP/2019 SHRI SUMIT GEHLOT, BHILWARA VS ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA ‘‘The appellant

BABA BEARINGS PVT LTD,BORANADA vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

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

condoned. 3 BABA BEARINGS PVT LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 3(3), JDOHPUR 3.1 The solitary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal relates to late deposit of employees contribution towards PF and ESI. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 25-09-2018 alongwith the Tax Audit Report. The CPC, Bangalore

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

24 /03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 02-01-2018 for the assessment year 2008-09 raising therein following grounds of appeal:- 2 NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS ITO, (EXEMPTION) AJMER ‘1. Your goodself is requested

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)

24. We additionally note that the respondents allude to 3687 digital submissions of Form 10 in the month of October 2016. We have not been provided any further details with respect to how that number would be representative or proof of a broad or universal functionality of the filing portal when compared with the body of assessees seeking to accumulate

M/S. KHADI GRAMMODHYOG PRATISTHAN,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(2), BANGALURU / BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

24 CTR (SC) 345: (1981) 131 TTR 451 (SC) has held as Follows: "It is well known that an appellate authority has the jurisdiction as well as THE DUTY TO CORRECT ALL ERRORS IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER APPEAL AND TO ISSUE, if necessary, appropriate directions to the authority against whose decision the appeal is preferred to dispose of the whole