SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

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 are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order

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)

delay be condoned and the matter remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits. 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee had been non-compliant throughout the reassessment

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

delay of 20 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 and therefore admitting the appeal we are proceeded to deal with the merits

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

delayed digital filing of Form 10. 29. Quite apart from the above, we also bear in mind the underlying intent of Section 11(2) and the submission of Form 10 in connection therewith which were aspects succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Assn. (2001) 2 SCC 128/[2001] 114 Taxman 255/247

LOKESH GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits 4. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: "1. Notice uw/s 148 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. In the reasons recorded there is no escapement of income. Reasons are to verify the transactions. 3. Addition

LOKESH GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits 4. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: "1. Notice uw/s 148 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. In the reasons recorded there is no escapement of income. Reasons are to verify the transactions. 3. Addition