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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone such delay on authorities concerned. In the case of Jaya Educational Trust v. Dy. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 225/191 ITD 107 (Chennai - Trib.), ITAT held that where assessee had filed return of income within due date specified under section 139(4) and also filed Form No. 10 electronically before completion of assessment, assessee could not be denied exemption under

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)

disallowing condonation of delay. The decisive factor is whether there existed sufficient cause for the delay and whether it was deliberate

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.

disallowed the appellant’s claim for set apart of Rs. 6,00,000/- considering the fact that form 10 was filed belatedly. Asst. Year: 2017-18 3 5. The Ld. AR argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax, while interpreting such belated applications in form 9A and form no. 10 satisfied this that the assessee was apprehended by reasonable cause

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.”

disallowance of interest for Rs. 13,23,694/- made by Ld. AO. 2. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify, or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 03 days in filing of the appeal

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

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 1 to 55, which is kept on record. The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.AO disallowed

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

disallowance relates to AY 2015-16.[Para 5.6] Therefore, in view of the above Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the Form 10 and resolution submitted during the appellate proceedings. It is humbly prayed before your lordships that Form 10 and the resolution may kindly be accepted at this stage so that the appellant trust can claim the exemption

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

DINESH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condoned without there being compelling grounds as advocated by the Hon'ble Courts. 7.24 These submissions were carefully considered. Dinesh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has contended that CPC has erred in charging late fees amounting to Rs. 38,200/- U/s. 234E. In support of his contention, he has quoted various decisions such as Hon'ble SC decision

DINESH INFRASTRURCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condoned without there being compelling grounds as advocated by the Hon'ble Courts. 7.24 These submissions were carefully considered. Dinesh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has contended that CPC has erred in charging late fees amounting to Rs. 38,200/- U/s. 234E. In support of his contention, he has quoted various decisions such as Hon'ble SC decision

SHRI SUMIT GAHLOT,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad176/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Vs Shri Sumit Gahlot, The Ito House No.22, Ganesh Ward-1, Colony, Gulpura, Bhilwara Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bqapg9853L

disallowance of deduction u/s 80C of Rs.15,217/-. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2.1 At the outset of hearing the Bench noted that there is delay 169 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application for condonation

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

HARISH GAURAV,UDAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, / ACIT, C-2,, BENGALURU / UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleharish Gaurav Adit Cpc C/O Satyam Svg & Co 15-18, Bengaluru - 342006 Diamond Plazza, Hiran Magari Sect 5, Udaipur (Raj) - 313001 Pan No. Adhpg 1265 F 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. Cit(A), Addl/Jcit (A)-1 Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 15.02.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2021-22 Challenging Therein Rejection Of Appeal For The Delay Of 63 Days By The Ld. Cit(A) In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & In Deciding The Issue Of Disallowance Of Exemption/Deduction Claimed U/S 80Ia Of The Act On Merits Of The Case.

condone the short delay of 63 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in the present case and hold that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable. 6. In the present case, original return of income was filed on 17.02.2022 which was permitted under the law, thus

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

disallowance for delayed payment of employee's contribution. 2. There was a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reason for the delay was explained in the application that the order was not placed in the office of the advocate by the staff before and that it was only at the time of filing

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

condone the delay, and the matter is admitted for adjudication. 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of trading in fertilizers and pesticides to its members. The assessee, while filing return of income claimed exemption under section 80P(2)(iv) amount to Rs.3

M/S. SWASTIK GAUR GUM INDUSTRIES ,CHURU vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the ITA No. 431/JODH/2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13 as a lead case and the facts narrated. The assessee has raised the following

M/S. SWASTIK GAUR GUM INDUSTRIES ,CHURU vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the ITA No. 431/JODH/2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13 as a lead case and the facts narrated. The assessee has raised the following

M/S. SWASTIK GAUR GUM INDUSTRIES ,CHURU vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the ITA No. 431/JODH/2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13 as a lead case and the facts narrated. The assessee has raised the following

M/S. CHAND MAL ARUN KUMAR ,NIMBAHERA vs. ITO, WARD-3, CHITTORGARH

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Chand Mal Arun Vs. Ito – Ward-3 Kumar Chittorgarh, Nawab Ganj, Rajasthan. Nimbahera, Chittorgarh,-312601 Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. Aaafc7970R Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining trading addition of Rs. 1 lakh on adhoc basis. The entire addition so made may kindly be deleted as is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining