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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 29/03/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld.CPC, Bengaluru (in short, “the CPC”) passed under section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 31/05/2019. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 120 days. The assessee

UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

250 for AY 2015-16 under the presumption that the assessment order relates to AY 2016-17. The CIT (A) himself observed that the amendments as stated in his order will take effect from AY 2016-17. Thus, Ld. CIT erred in passing the 2016-17. Therefore the appellant appeals for deletion of addition made of Rs. 7200000. 4. That

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

M/S. PROGRESSIVE AND POPULAR MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHITTORGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.95 & 96/Jodh/2021 (यनिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The issue involved in the instant appeals relates to the deposit of employees’ contributions qua ESI & PF after the due date as prescribed in the relevant Acts, however, before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, resulting into making

M/S. PROGRESSIVE AND POPULAR MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHITTORGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.95 & 96/Jodh/2021 (यनिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The issue involved in the instant appeals relates to the deposit of employees’ contributions qua ESI & PF after the due date as prescribed in the relevant Acts, however, before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, resulting into making

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..

Section under which notice issued Date of Remarks issuance 1. 142(1)/143(2) 18-08-2010 None attended 2. 142(1)/143(2) 20-08-2010 None attended Seema Pandi vs. ITO. 3. 142(1)/143(2) 07-01-2011 None attended 4. 142(1)/143(2) 31-01-2011 None attended 5. 142(1)/143

AAMEEN BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the ground no

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity ‘the Act’] for A.Y. 2009-10. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Jodhpur,[in brevity ‘the AO’] order passed u/s 143(3)/147of the Act. 2. The assessee has taken the following ground: I.T.A. No.571/Jodh/2018 2 Assessment Year

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

section 250(6) of the Act, it is the duty of the Commissioner (Appeals) to state a point in dispute, record the reasons and pass a speaking order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 49% and Canara Bank v. V. K. Awasthy

SARVODAYA MINING SERVICES,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 09/03/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 17/12/2018. 2. The appeal was filed

MOHAMMAD YASEER,BARDEZ GOA vs. ITO, WARD-2, MAKRANA

In the result, all the appeals bearing ITAs No

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

1 ITA Nos345, 501, 503, 514 & 526/Jodh/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.345/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mohammad Yasir vs ITO, Ward-2, Makrana 804/4CA, 2/1 Sapna R/E Apartments, Socorro, Bardez 403 501, Goa PAN : BSDUPS2483P APPELLANT RESPONDENT

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

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.

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012–13, whereby various additions made under section 68 of the Act were sustained. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 217 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining that the delay

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, CHITTORGARH

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18, date of order 28/02/2024. The impugned orders are emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur (in short, ‘Ld.AO’), passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, for A.Ys

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18, date of order 28/02/2024. The impugned orders are emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur (in short, ‘Ld.AO’), passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, for A.Ys

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18, date of order 28/02/2024. The impugned orders are emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur (in short, ‘Ld.AO’), passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, for A.Ys

RAMESHWAR SONI,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the Ld.CIT(A). But due to illness, the assessee was unable to comprehend that the notices of hearing on different dates were issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal order was passed exparte and the impugned additions were confirmed. Aggrieved assessee filed an

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 *in short the “Act”+ date of order 21/06/2024 for AY 2014-15 to AY 20018-19 and for AY 2019-20 date of order 24/06/2024. The impugned orders were originated from the orders of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur [in short, the “Ld. AO”+, passed under section