SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI ,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXTEMPTION) , BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation in Circular No. 8 of 2022 of CBDT dt. 31st March, 2022 and latest circular no. 6/2023 dated 24th May, 2023 of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB, under s. 80G(5) of the Act. We note that Co- ordinate

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation in Circular No. 8 of 2022 of CBDT dt. 31st March, 2022 and latest circular no. 6/2023 dated 24th May, 2023 of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB, under s. 80G(5) of the Act. We note that Co- ordinate

NAMRATA TRIPATHI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: :Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

delayed by 17 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay

M/S KRISHAK SAHAKARI SHAKKAR KARKHANA,GUNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

17 days in preferring this appeal by the appellant. Thus the appeal is out of the limitation period by 47 days. The appellant in the Form 35 has neither informed nor it has filed any condonation application or any affidavit for the delay caused in filing the appeal. Normally, in case of delayed filing of appeal, the appeal is accompanied

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

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)

17 months and above so, the delay was not condoned and appeal was dismissed in limine. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee has reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) and filed a Paper Book running into 169 pages in support of the contentions raised. 5. The ld. Counsel argued that due to oversight mistake while filing

FIROZABAD SHIKOHABAD,FIROZABAD vs. C.I.T.-II, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 5. The assessee is a body corporate formed under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (UPUPD Act, 1973). The object of the assessee as per UPUPD Act, 1973 is as follows: “The objects of the Authority shall be to promote and secure the development

ITO WARD-1(1)(2), AGRA vs. MAMTA SINGH, AGRA

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Mamta Singh, Ward-1(1)(2), Agra 6, Amar Lok Colony, Opposite Jalma Hospital, Agra. (Appellant) Pan :Aobps 7284 K (Respondent)

condoned the delay and admitted the C.O. for hearing. The Learned A.R. was directed to proceed with his arguments. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT [Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the entire impugned additions on technical grounds, and not on merits, without appreciating complete facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in treating the assessment order framed by the Learned Ajit Singh Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as non-est in the facts and circumstances

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The following grounds have been raised: “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(l)(c) of the I. T. Act. 2. Because the assessee duly discharged her onus of proving the cash credits to be genuine. The addition

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. Though the assessee has raised several grounds before me, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld JCIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made on account of differential Sanjana Gupta consideration under the head “Capital Gains

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

condone the delay in furnishing of Form No. 68 by the assessee. 15. From the above, it could be seen that Assessee had duly proved its bonafide intention of settling the complete dispute by accepting to the assessment framed by the Learned AO. The Assessee had paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the Learned

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

condone the delay in furnishing of Form No. 68 by the assessee. 15. From the above, it could be seen that Assessee had duly proved its bonafide intention of settling the complete dispute by accepting to the assessment framed by the Learned AO. The Assessee had paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the Learned

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

condone the delay in furnishing of Form No. 68 by the assessee. 15. From the above, it could be seen that Assessee had duly proved its bonafide intention of settling the complete dispute by accepting to the assessment framed by the Learned AO. The Assessee had paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the Learned

PRASHANT GUPTA L/H OF LATE SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,FARRUKHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(2), FARRUKHABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Prashant Gupta Vs. Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Ward-4(2)(2), Surendra Kumar Farrukhabad Gupta, Bajariya Brandavan, Kamganj, Farrukhabad, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcwpg7301M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are challenging the validity of the appellate order passed by the Learned CIT(A) in the name of Prashant Gupta deceased person. I find that assessee Late Surendra Kumar Gupta had expired