SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay order u/s 119(2)(b) passed by Ld. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur. 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred on facts and in law while charging interest u/s 234A/B/C of Rs. 117392/-. 3. The appellant reserves rights to add/alter/amend/withdrawn any/all ground of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust

RAJENDRA SINGH BHATI,JAISALMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, BARMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

delay of 51 days in filing this appeal is condoned end appeal is admitted. 3. At the time of hearing, none attended for the assessee. However, with the assistance of the learned DR, we have gone through the facts of the case and heard the appeal as covered matter in favour of revenue by the judgment of the honourable apex

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

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

delay for 36 days in filing the appeals is condoned and matter is taken for adjudication. 3. All the appeals have same nature of facts and common issue. So, all the appeals and cross objection are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Related to ITA Nos 453 & 455/Jodh/2024, these appeals have common facts. Accordingly, ITA No.453/Jodh/2024

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

delay for 36 days in filing the appeals is condoned and matter is taken for adjudication. 3. All the appeals have same nature of facts and common issue. So, all the appeals and cross objection are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Related to ITA Nos 453 & 455/Jodh/2024, these appeals have common facts. Accordingly, ITA No.453/Jodh/2024

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

delay for 36 days in filing the appeals is condoned and matter is taken for adjudication. 3. All the appeals have same nature of facts and common issue. So, all the appeals and cross objection are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Related to ITA Nos 453 & 455/Jodh/2024, these appeals have common facts. Accordingly, ITA No.453/Jodh/2024

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR vs. BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE , PALI

Accordingly, it is held that the AO rightly added Rs.19,06,200/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act,1961. The appellant fails on this ground. The ground raised by the appellant regarding this issue is, hereby, ...

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-Central Circle-2 Bhanwar Singh Rathore बनाम/ Room No.68, Income Tax Office Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Paota, C-Road Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. Rajasthan-306 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.02/Jodh/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Bhanwar Singh Rathore Acit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Room No.68, Income Tax Office Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Paota, C-Road Vs. Rajasthan-306 401 Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

condone the delay and proceed with the disposal of appeals as well as cross- objection on merits. 1.3 We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including written submissions and documents placed in the paper book. The judicial precedents as relied upon during the course of hearing have duly been deliberated upon. Our adjudication

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JODHPUR vs. PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT, PALI

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

condonation of delay in submissions of appeal. 2. The appellant trust was created on 26.12.2015 and application for registration u/s 11/12 was made on 20.1.2016. The ld. CIT, Exemption had erred in granting exemption w.e.f 10.6.2016 as against 20.01.2016 being the date of application. 3. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the ground

PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT,PALI vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

condonation of delay in submissions of appeal. 2. The appellant trust was created on 26.12.2015 and application for registration u/s 11/12 was made on 20.1.2016. The ld. CIT, Exemption had erred in granting exemption w.e.f 10.6.2016 as against 20.01.2016 being the date of application. 3. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the ground

AZIZ KHAN,ABU ROAD vs. ITO, ABU

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Aziz Khan Vs The Ito Abu Road Abu

delay is condoned. 4.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 28-10-2019 declaring total income of Rs.33,36,685/- which was processed u/s 143(1) at Rs.41,51,336/- buy disallowing a sum of Rs.8,14,651/- on account of provident fund

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)

51,233/- for A.Y.2019-2020. 3. Against the above order of AO, the assessee preferred first appeals before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the AO for the respective assessment years under consideration while dismissing both the appeals of the assessee. 4. Further feeling aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before us. 5. Having heard

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)

51,233/- for A.Y.2019-2020. 3. Against the above order of AO, the assessee preferred first appeals before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the AO for the respective assessment years under consideration while dismissing both the appeals of the assessee. 4. Further feeling aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before us. 5. Having heard

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