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

7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 143(1) by treating voluntary contributions as income under section 11(1)(d), whereas the appellant never claimed exemption under section 11 but under section 10(23C)(iiiad). 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled law, the order passed

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

7 | P a g e assessee on the ground that there was delay of 2176 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) as assessee is not able to explain the reasonable cause/justification in filing the appeal belatedly with the CIT(Appeals). It was submitted that application for condonation of delay was duly filed with

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)

154 of the Act only in the month of November 2023 when the income tax department called the assessee with regard to payment of outstanding taxes. Thereafter the assessee collected the order from the department and had filed an appeal before the Learned CITA with a delay of 454 days. The learned CITA graciously condoned the delay in filing

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

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

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT appeal the assessee is before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. Appeal no 357/ag/2018 8. The ld. AR had submitted that the mistake committed by the assessee whereby he had wrongly included the exempted from the total income is required to be sooner corrected by the assessing officer

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

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

7) That now the assessee is desirous to avail the remedy for correction of mistake as per provisions section 154 of the Act, hence do not want to press the present appeal further and willing to withdraw the same. Hence it is therefore requested to kindly allow the aforesaid application towards withdrawal of appeal No.377/A/2024 with liberty, without considering

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

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

7) That now the assessee is desirous to avail the remedy for correction of mistake as per provisions section 154 of the Act, hence do not want to press the present appeal further and willing to withdraw the same. Hence it is therefore requested to kindly allow the aforesaid application towards withdrawal of appeal No.377/A/2024 with liberty, without considering

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)

7) That now the assessee is desirous to avail the remedy for correction of mistake as per provisions section 154 of the Act, hence do not want to press the present appeal further and willing to withdraw the same. Hence it is therefore requested to kindly allow the aforesaid application towards withdrawal of appeal No.377/A/2024 with liberty, without considering

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee to decide the same on merits. Shri Brajendra Vikram Singh vs. PCIT 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for impugned year on 26.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.79,510/-. The assessee also filed the revised return

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,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, 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

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

154 petition, it could not be held as an aggrieved party so as to file the instant appeal. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and revenue’s contentions. We first of all deem it appropriate to with the assessee’s delay of 6 years 4 months and 8 days. We reiterate that the assessee

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

condoned by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and, it was held by learned CIT(A) that the assessee cannot be granted foreign 3 | P a g e tax credit (FTC) . Thus, the appeal of the assessee stood dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal with the Tribunal, and the ld. Counsel for the assessee

BUNDELKHAND GRAMOTTHAN EVAM SHAIKCHHIK VIKAS SAMITI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

condoned by CIT(E), Lucknow]. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by disallowing the amount based on Form-10B. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act and the same was denied. 5. It was brought to my notice that while certifying the Form-10B, the auditor of assessee has, by mistake, filled