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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

34,89,828/-, Aggrieved to it. the appellant is in present appeal. I have carefully considered the facts of the case in the light of submission made by the appellant as well as the order u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the applicable law in this regard. 6.1. Ground of appeal No. 1: During

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the net delay of 280 days for assessment year 2012-13, considering the sufficient cause presented by the appellant. The appeals were admitted and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 144", "Rules 34

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 11 (5) of the act has been furnished with proof has been submitted before Ld CIT (Exemptions) and the delay has been condoned on verification. (Pg No. 34

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

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

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD. vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 144 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961, invoking provisions of best judgement, an ex-parte\norder qua the assessee society where the Assessment order indicated the\naddress as ADARSH PRINTER BHAWAN RAJMATA DHARAMSALA, SIROHI 307001,\nRajasthan, India, which was seized to be the registered office after appointment\nof the Official Liquidator. However, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide

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

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA Nos

section 143(3) of the Act.\n2. All the appeals carry same nature of facts and have a common issue, so\nITANo.741/JODH/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 is taken as lead case.\n3. The registry informed us that the appeals are filed with a delay of 34 days.\nThe assessee submitted a condonation

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 144 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961, invoking provisions of best judgement, an ex-parte\norder qua the assessee society where the Assessment order indicated the\naddress as ADARSH PRINTER BHAWAN RAJMATA DHARAMSALA, SIROHI 307001,\nRajasthan, India, which was seized to be the registered office after appointment\nof the Official Liquidator. However, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide

SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL ,NEEMUCH vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, UDAIPUR

delay of 151 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The issue revolved around investments made by the assessees and the source of funds for these investments.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer reopened assessments based on information regarding investments with M/s U B Investment. While the assessees provided documents detailing transactions and sources of funds, the Assessing

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

section 143(3) of the Act. 2. All the appeals carry same nature of facts and have a common issue, so ITANo.741/JODH/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 is taken as lead case. 3. The registry informed us that the appeals are filed with a delay of 34 days. The assessee submitted a condonation

SHRI SANATAN DHARAM SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned order dated 24

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Jaipur, An Application U/S 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), In Form 10Ab To Seek Its Registration.

condone the delay in filing of the appeal. 9. While arguing the appeal, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the applicant Institution has already applied for its registration under RPT Act, 1959 by filing appropriate application before the competent authority on 22.05.2024, and that 4 Shri Sanatan Dharam Shikshan Sansthan in view of the said application a request

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

section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 17/12/2018. 2. The appeal was filed with delay for 15 days. The petition for condonation of delay was filed. The ordinate delay for 15days is condoned. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The Ld.AR argued and submitted a paper book containing pages

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

section 12 AB cannot be granted at this stage. It was further observed as under: 7. Without prejudice to the above, we allow liberty to the assessee Trust to file afresh application in prescribed Form for provisional registration u/s 12AB before the CIT Exemption who shall condone the delay and examine the application of the assessee Trust de novo

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.”

condoned. 1.8. It will also be worthwhile to submit that the Board was also considering the difficulties being faced genuinely by the taxpayers in making such compliance and that the penal provisions under section 234E may be too harsh to be implemented. The penalty of Rs. 200/- for such technical defect was too high, and therefore a Circular was issued

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

delay in filing such Form/ return of income for the assessment year for the assessment year 2016-17,2017-18 & 2018-19. The bench noted that in the order of the ld. CIT(A) at page following non disputed facts emerges: “5.6.3 Under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, it has also been provided that if the Income from

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