MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

v. Gajanan construction Vs. DCIT (ITAT) Pune. vi. Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

v. Gajanan construction Vs. DCIT (ITAT) Pune. vi. Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

v. Gajanan construction Vs. DCIT (ITAT) Pune. vi. Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

v. Gajanan construction Vs. DCIT (ITAT) Pune. vi. Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

v. Gajanan construction Vs. DCIT (ITAT) Pune. vi. Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee

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

36) against the order of CIT(Appeals)-1 Udaipur. (1) I, Neeraj Paliwal Prop of M/s Paliwal Departmental Store aged about 52 years, son of Mr. Basanti Lalji Paliwal identified by PAN ADXPP3119P at present residing at Address Plot No.2 Kishore Nagar Extn. Scheme, Near LIC Office, Kankroli, Rajsamand do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: (2) That

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

36) against the order of CIT(Appeals)-1 Udaipur. (1) I, Neeraj Paliwal Prop of M/s Paliwal Departmental Store aged about 52 years, son of Mr. Basanti Lalji Paliwal identified by PAN ADXPP3119P at present residing at Address Plot No.2 Kishore Nagar Extn. Scheme, Near LIC Office, Kankroli, Rajsamand do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: (2) That

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

36) against the order of CIT(Appeals)-1 Udaipur. (1) I, Neeraj Paliwal Prop of M/s Paliwal Departmental Store aged about 52 years, son of Mr. Basanti Lalji Paliwal identified by PAN ADXPP3119P at present residing at Address Plot No.2 Kishore Nagar Extn. Scheme, Near LIC Office, Kankroli, Rajsamand do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: (2) That

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

36) against the order of CIT(Appeals)-1 Udaipur. (1) I, Neeraj Paliwal Prop of M/s Paliwal Departmental Store aged about 52 years, son of Mr. Basanti Lalji Paliwal identified by PAN ADXPP3119P at present residing at Address Plot No.2 Kishore Nagar Extn. Scheme, Near LIC Office, Kankroli, Rajsamand do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: (2) That

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

36) against the order of CIT(Appeals)-1 Udaipur. (1) I, Neeraj Paliwal Prop of M/s Paliwal Departmental Store aged about 52 years, son of Mr. Basanti Lalji Paliwal identified by PAN ADXPP3119P at present residing at Address Plot No.2 Kishore Nagar Extn. Scheme, Near LIC Office, Kankroli, Rajsamand do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: (2) That

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

V (JCIT-DR) Date of hearing 31/10/2022 Date of 2/11/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26-11-2021 for the assessment year 2018-19 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ITA NO. 22/JODH/2022

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

section 11 and 12 shall apply to the case of the assessee Accordingly no exemption is granted u/s 11(2) of the IT Act for the year under consideration In result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(A). The present appeal filed

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

V (JCIT-DR) Date of hearing 01/11/2022 Date of 2 /11/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 25-11-2021& 01-10-2021 for the assessment years

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

V (JCIT-DR) Date of hearing 01/11/2022 Date of 2 /11/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29-09-2021 for the assessment year 2018-19 raising therein solitary ground of appeal as under

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31 DELHI, DELHI vs. RSWM LTD., BHILWARA

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted. 4. Briefly the facts are that the Appellant is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing cotton and synthetic yarns. During the year under consideration, the Appellant has received Interest subsidy amounting to Rs. 36,25, 79,467/- by virtue of Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS). In the original

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31 DELHI, DELHI vs. RSWM LTD., BHILWARA

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

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

delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted. 4. Briefly the facts are that the Appellant is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing cotton and synthetic yarns. During the year under consideration, the Appellant has received Interest subsidy amounting to Rs. 36,25, 79,467/- by virtue of Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS). In the original

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. RSWM LTD., BHILWARA

In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed

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

delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted. 4. Briefly the facts are that the Appellant is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing cotton and synthetic yarns. During the year under consideration, the Appellant has received Interest subsidy amounting to Rs. 36,25, 79,467/- by virtue of Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS). In the original