AASTITVA JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16

section 164(1) of the Act, but the CPC applied MMR and raised demand against the assessee. It was submitted that there was delay of 2176 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) beyond the time prescribed u/s 249(2), as the assessee was not having knowledge of the intimation/order of the CPC dated 19.10.2017 raising demand against

GAYATRI SHIKSHA NYAS,AGRA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay of 2350 days, without appreciating the bona fide and reasonable cause duly explained in the condonation petition. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant was diligently pursuing the remedy available under Section

GAYATRI SHIKSHA NYAS,AGRA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay of 2350 days, without appreciating the bona fide and reasonable cause duly explained in the condonation petition. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant was diligently pursuing the remedy available under Section

NAVIN CHAND,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed our direction

1) for the assessment year under consideration. Appeal no 357/ag/2018 As the letter was sent to the old address of the assessee, the assessee failed to rectify the return of income filed by including the exempted income in the total income within a period of time.] 4. Thereafter the assessee filed the revised return of income by excluding the exempted

KALPTARU VIKASH SAMITI,KOTESHWAR ROAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act was suo moto rectified under section 154 of the Act by the learned ITO Gwalior vide order dated 8-8-2022 without even issuing notice under section 154 of the Act to the assessee. Even the order passed under section 154 of the Act dated 8-8-2022 was stated to be not served

AMIT MAHESWARI,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1),\nFarrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').\n2. At the outset, I find that the appeal is delayed by the assessee by 2460\ndays. The order of the Id CIT(A) was passed on 28.05.2018. The certified copy\nof the said order was applied by the assessee only on 05.10.2021 which was not\nreceived by the assessee. Thereafter, rectification

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO, WARD, 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

1) of the Act for wrong disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD,4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

1) of the Act for wrong disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WALFARE SANSTHAN ,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

1) of the Act for wrong disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

154 was rejected by the AO vide order dated 09.03.2021. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(Appeals) ,and learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by referring to Rule 128(8) and 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, wherein the delay in filing form No. 67 was not condoned

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

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

BRAJENDRA VIKRAM SINGH ,JALAUN vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(5), ORAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Brajendra Vikram Singh Ward-2(1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. Pan-Ciops6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. PAN-CIOPS6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 O R D E R [ PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner

BRIJESH CHANDRA,KONCH (JALAUN) vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NFAC NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Brijesh Chandra, Vs. Ito, Vill & Post-Bhandari Ward-2(1)(5), Padri, Konch, Jalaun, Orai, Up Orai, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afgpc1541M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 21.03.2019 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal by the assessee by 1167 days. Considering the reason adduced in the condonation petition

SMT VIMLA DEVI RAM LAXMAN SHARMA SHIKSHA SAMITI,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD EXEMTION, AGRA RCC, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhsmt. Vimla Devi Ram Laxman Sharma Shiksha Samiti, Vs. Ito, Village Gadi Thana, Ward Exemption, Shamshabad, Agra. Agra – 283 125 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aakas3559F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 26.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 1650 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of Inordinate

1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned ADDL/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Ld. JCIT(A)”, for short] dated 26.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 1650 days in filing the appeal before

BABA SAUDAN SINGH VEERMATI DEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HATHRAS vs. CIT(E), LUCKNOW

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalbaba Saudan Singh Veermati Vs. Commissioner Of Devi Educational Society, Income Tax Village Kurawali, Post Luheta Qadiri Building, Marris Tehsil Sadabad, Road, Aligarh, Dist. Hathras Up-281306 Uttar Pradesh-202001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabtb8953C Appellant .. Respondent

1 Baba Saudan Singh Veermati Devi Education Society IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Baba Saudan Singh Veermati Vs. Commissioner of Devi Educational Society, Income Tax Village Kurawali, Post Luheta Qadiri Building, Marris Tehsil Sadabad, Road, Aligarh, Dist. Hathras UP-281306 Uttar Pradesh