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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay from the Competent Authority hence, this Circular does not come to its rescue. From the combined reading of section 139(4A) and section 12A(1)(ba) and the explanatory Budget Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2017 as the appellant has filed the return of income beyond the due date (the due date was 15.02.2021 and the date

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

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

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..

delay of 208 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme 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. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “i). That

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 249(3), the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the additions on merits. The specific finding of the CIT(A) in para 2.9 of the order reads as under: “In light of the above legal position and judicial pronouncements, I have considered the reasons for delay in filing the present

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 249(3), the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the additions on merits. The specific finding of the CIT(A) in para 2.9 of the order reads as under: “In light of the above legal position and judicial pronouncements, I have considered the reasons for delay in filing the present

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 249(3), the CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the additions on merits. The specific finding of the CIT(A) in para 2.9 of the order reads as under: “In light of the above legal position and judicial pronouncements, I have considered the reasons for delay in filing the present

UTTARAKHAND VIKAS SAMITI,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleuttarakhand Vikas Samiti Vs. Dcit, Cpc/Ito, Ward Exemption, 117, Main Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aaatu 3935 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A) Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 24.01.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs. 6,00,000/- Without Appreciating Facts Of The Case.

delayed filed form on 20.02.2018 be condoned or not. Since, the assessee fulfils the conditions as prescribed as per circular no. 07/2018 we direct the ld. AO considered the claim of the assessee for an amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- in accordance with the provision of section 11(2) of the Act. Based on this observation the solitary

EKKADAM SEVA SANSTHAN,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rejected. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 20 days for which the assessee had filed the condonation application for condoning the delay. 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the condonation application filed

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

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.

section 12 AB, the applicant applied for its registration under RPT Act and same is still pending before the competent authority, as submitted by Learned AR for the applicant. Having regard to this claim regarding bona fide claim , we deem it a fit case to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. 9

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

9. Section 143(4) of the Act only mentions that on completion of regular assessment under section 143(3) dr 144 of the Act, the tax paid by assessee under section 143(1) of the Act shall be deemed to have been paid toward such regular assessment. That by itself does not mean there is merger of intimation under section

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

MITHILA DRUGS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradmithila Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-70, Road No.2, Circle-1, 102A, Mewar Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub Madri, Udaipur-313003. City Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaccm6767B Assessee By None (W/S) Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

section 80, business loss as on 31.03.2015, i.e. Rs.1,42,68,828/-cannot be carried forward. However it was submitted to the CIT(A) that petition for delay condonation in filing returns of income were submitted before the competent authorities and were under consideration till that time. 4. It is further to submit that order

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

9(1) of the Income-tax Act for the fund or Institution. In case the Form is not submitted Form 10 along with return of income, then the benefit of accumulation would not be available and such income would be taxable at the applicable rate. Further, the benefit of accumulation would also not be available if return of income

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 249(3) liberally in the spirit of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (supra) and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (supra). The approach of the Ld. CIT(A) defeats the very object of justice delivery in a faceless regime, where communication lapses can occur for reasons beyond control. 8.4 Accordingly

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