MUNNA RAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

delay in the instant case clearly demonstrated that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. Accordingly, 4 he held that the appellant has no "sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well- settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

condone the delay and proceed to\ndecide the appeal on merit.\n4. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal. In\nGround No.1, grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in confirming the addition of Rs.25 lacs made by the\nAO on account of disallowance of excess stock claimed by the\nassessee.\n5. The brief facts

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

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

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31 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

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

SHREE NAVKAR REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

condonation of delay we admit the appeal to be decided on merits. 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has filed return of income for A.Y 2017-18 electronically on 16.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. Notice