SHREE PIPARDI SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD-2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 448/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20)

Section 249(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. Th contents of the petition for condoning the delay are reproduced below

KHIMJI HARIDAS MODI KAUTUMBIK TRUST,STATION ROAD vs. ITO EXEMPTION WD 2 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.79&80/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20)

condone the delay of both the appeals of assessees and admit both the appeals for hearing. ITA Nos. 79-80/Rjt/2025 A.Ys. 18-19 & 1-20 Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust 8. On merit, at the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent its case before

KHIMJI HARIDAS MODI KAUTUMBIK TRUST,STATION ROAD vs. ITO EXEMPTION WD 2 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.79&80/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20)

condone the delay of both the appeals of assessees and admit both the appeals for hearing. ITA Nos. 79-80/Rjt/2025 A.Ys. 18-19 & 1-20 Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust 8. On merit, at the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent its case before

LATE ARJAN KANJI PUJARA SMARK CHARITABLE TRUST BHACHAU,BHACHAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay of 852 days as no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee u/s. 249(3) of the Act. 2.1. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant is a Charitable Trust duly registered under section 12A of the Act and having objects of providing education facilities to the society by running schools and relief

SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND TRUST,ADIPUR vs. THE DCIT (CPC) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condone such delay. Applying the said principle, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent dated 12-3-2021 is quashed and aside. The impugned order of rectification under section 154

SHRI SHANTILAL MALTIPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,JAMNAGAR. vs. THE ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX & THE ITO-TDS-CIRCLE-1,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, ITA No.275/Rjt/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes whereas

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) for two and half years which was not condoned by the learned CIT (A). Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. 5. It was explained by the learned AR for the assessee that the assessee has filed online rectification application under section 154

KESHAV TIRTH FOUNDATION,RAJKOT vs. THE CIT (E), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condonation of the delay in filing the appeal with the request to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT exemption for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 7. Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the necessary facts as culled out from the orders

SHRI DIPTEN AHINDRA BHOWMICK,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

154 Taxman 33 wherein it was held as under: It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure

M/S RUDRAKSH DETERGENT & CHEMICAL PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 154 of the Act, which caused delay in filing the appeal. The learned AR in support of his contention also filed the affidavit of the director of the assessee company which is placed on record. Accordingly the learned AR prayed before us for the condonation

BABU BHURA VARCHAND,BHUJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHUJ-1, BHUJ

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 43/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Babu Bhura Varchand Income Tax Officer, 124, Ram Krishna Nagar, Bhuj Vs. Ward-3, Gandhidham (Bhuj-1), H.O. Bhuj, Kachchh – 370 001 Income Tax Officer, Bhuj, Nr. Leva Patel Hospital, Mundra Road, Bhuj – 370 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aixpv 1911 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], dated 14/09/2022, which in turn arises out an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO”) u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 30.12.2021. Babu Bhura Varchand 2. The appeal filed by the assessee

SORTHIYA AHIR GNATINO UTARO,BHAVNATH, JUNAGADH vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 13(9) of the Act exemption u/s. 11(2) is allowed only if Form 10 is e-filed before the I.T.A No. 104/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 3 Sorthiya Ahir Gnatino Utaro vs. ADIT(CPC) due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. As the assessee filed Form 10 after the due date, but along with

SHRI DHIRENDRA NARBHERAM SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 2 (3) (5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

delay. Accordingly, we condone the same in pursuance to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re reported in 125 taxmann.com 151 and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order

SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND TRUST,ADIPUR vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.902/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust The Ito (Exemption) बनाम Plot No.1, Dc-2 Ward-1 Rambaug Road Rajkot. Vs. Ward-6A, Adipur. Pan : Aabts 1102 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Chennai[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 02.05.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Intimation Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Cpc) U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 31.10.2015. Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust 2 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under:

condonation of delay in filing the audit report for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The ld CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to fulfil, the fundamental requirement of timely audit report submission therefore, the adjustment made by the assessing officer(CPC), concerning the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act, was confirmed

SHRI SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR KUNDAL,KUNDAL, TALUKA: - BHARWALA, DISTRICT: -BOTAD vs. THE DCIT/ACIT(CPC),, BANGALORE

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

section 154 of the Act on 07-06-2019 stating that the reason for rejection is that form 10B was not filed along with the return of income. 4. Appeal of the assessee before Ld. CIT(Appeals) was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), and accordingly

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question

SHRI BABULAL MIYARAM GADRI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of the Ld

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said question