SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPC-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

condonation delay and have not accepted the ground for not preferring the appeals before the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee is a semi-government school and was not aware of the technicalities of filing the return of income, deduction

SH. RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY,MATHURA vs. ACIT-CPC TDS., , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

condonation delay and have not accepted the ground for not preferring the appeals before the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee is a semi-government school and was not aware of the technicalities of filing the return of income, deduction

SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPS-TDS, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

condonation delay and have not accepted the ground for not preferring the appeals before the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee is a semi-government school and was not aware of the technicalities of filing the return of income, deduction

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,1, NEW PATEL NAGAR, KONCH, JALAUN, KONCH S.O (JALAUN) vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned the delay in filing of the appeal before us for these two assessment years as well as before the ld. CIT(A), we hereby set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file to decide the issue afresh on merits. As regards for AY 2017-18, even though

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,KONCH, JALAUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned the delay in filing of the appeal before us for these two assessment years as well as before the ld. CIT(A), we hereby set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file to decide the issue afresh on merits. As regards for AY 2017-18, even though

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,KONCH, JALAUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned the delay in filing of the appeal before us for these two assessment years as well as before the ld. CIT(A), we hereby set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file to decide the issue afresh on merits. As regards for AY 2017-18, even though

RAMKISHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case: The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is non-filer and initiated proceedings u/s 148 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, where he had reason to believe that income of Rs.89,20,000/- chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2018-19 had escaped assessment within

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed declaring total income at ‘Nil' and assessee has declared net agricultural income of Rs.49,50,000/- which

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

SATISH NARAYAN SHUKLA,PHAPHUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURAIYA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

deduction u/s. 54 and 54F amounting to Rs.12,22,705/- made by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.03.2022, the Assessing Officer levied penalty amounting to Rs.2,51,878/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 22.09.2022. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) rejected the assessee

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

condone the delay. 3. The facts and issues involved in both these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, both these appeals are being decided by this common order. The facts of ITA No. 347/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as under: 4. The brief facts underappeal are that the assessee’s bank is carrying

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

condone the delay. 3. The facts and issues involved in both these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, both these appeals are being decided by this common order. The facts of ITA No. 347/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as under: 4. The brief facts underappeal are that the assessee’s bank is carrying

M/S KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI,ETAWAH vs. DCIT-CPC, AGRA

In the result, for statistical purposes the appeal of the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & S.A. No. 04/Agra/2019) (Assessment Year-2015-16)

condone delay by enacting Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to or substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits’. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim 'interest reipublicae up sit finislitium’ (it is for the general welfare that a period

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

condoned. 3. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. The brief facts state that the appellant in all the four appeals is Govt. Civil, Hospital and engaged in providing hospitality services. The appellant submitted delayed

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND,BHIND vs. AESSESSING OFFICER TDS OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVWAN CITY CENTRE FLOOR FIRST

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

condoned. 3. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. The brief facts state that the appellant in all the four appeals is Govt. Civil, Hospital and engaged in providing hospitality services. The appellant submitted delayed

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

condoned. 3. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. The brief facts state that the appellant in all the four appeals is Govt. Civil, Hospital and engaged in providing hospitality services. The appellant submitted delayed

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

condoned. 3. The facts and issues involved in all these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 4. The brief facts state that the appellant in all the four appeals is Govt. Civil, Hospital and engaged in providing hospitality services. The appellant submitted delayed