RADHIKA GARG,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. I find that the assessee vide ground number 5 had raised a preliminary ground stating that the statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued in the instant case by the learned AO which becomes fatal

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.513 & 520/Agr/2025 4. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2017, the return was process u/s 143(1) of the Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) while processing return u/s 143(1) of the Act came up CPC treated the voluntary contributions received by the assessee as income

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.513 & 520/Agr/2025 4. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2017, the return was process u/s 143(1) of the Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) while processing return u/s 143(1) of the Act came up CPC treated the voluntary contributions received by the assessee as income

LATE SHRI DAMODAR SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR KRISHNAPAL,AGRA vs. PRABHAKAR, AGRA

Appeal is dismissed as premature at\nthis stage in above terms, subject to all just exceptions

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147\nof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act').\nITA No.120/Agr/2024\n2.\nCase called twice. None appears at the appellant's behest. It\nis accordingly proceeded ex-parte.\n3. The delay of 3 days in filing the assessee's instant appeal\nstands condoned as per her contentions/averments explaining\nreasonable cause on account

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to\ndecide the appeal of the assessee on merits.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm.\nThe return of income for the year under appeal was filed declaring\ntotal income at ‘Nil' and assessee has declared net agricultural\nincome of Rs.49,50,000/- which

MITHLA YADAV L/H OF LATE GYAN SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 3(1), GWALIOR

Appeal stand dismissed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 412/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Smt. Mithla Yadav Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ (L/H Of Late Shri Gyan Singh Yadav) Ward 3(1), Gwalior. 67, Kaulonipura, Vs. Preetam Singh Ghas Mandi, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afbpy-6128-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Appellant Herein Smt. Mithla Yadav Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against An Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 21-06-2023 Confirming Assessment Order Dated 19-11-2018 As Passed By Ld. Ao Assessing Total Income Of Rs.107.01 Lacs. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 31 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing By Revenue That The Appellant Smt. Mithla Yadav Has Claimed Herself To Be The Legal Representative Of The Deceased Late Shri Gyan Singh Yadav Who Is Stated To Have Left For His Heavenly Abode. The Ld. Sr. Dr Submits That Neither She Has Proved Herself As The Legal Representative As Per Section 2(29) Of Income Tax Act R.W.S 2(11) Of Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Nor

delay of 31 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing by revenue that the appellant Smt. Mithla Yadav has claimed herself to be the legal representative of the deceased Late Shri Gyan Singh Yadav who is stated to have left for his heavenly abode. The Ld. Sr. DR submits that neither

GORA BAI SAHU ,ASHOK NAGAR vs. ITO ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Gora Bai Sahu, Income Tax Officer, Shri Ram Charan Sahu & Ashok Nagar, L/H Late Gora Bai, Sony Vs Madhya Pradesh-473331 Colony, Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh-473331 Pan-Fdzps8877N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case:- This case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act vide noticed dated 28.03.2019 on the basis of AIR information of purchasing immovable property having value more than Rs. 30,00,000/-. The legal heir of the assessee Shri Ramcharan Lal Sahu filed the return

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)

2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for Form No. 68 being filed after a lapse of time by stating the following reasons:- a) There is no dispute that the units at Haridwar and Kashipur are entitled for deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. The assessee had submitted audit report

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)

2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for Form No. 68 being filed after a lapse of time by stating the following reasons:- a) There is no dispute that the units at Haridwar and Kashipur are entitled for deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. The assessee had submitted audit report

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)

2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for Form No. 68 being filed after a lapse of time by stating the following reasons:- a) There is no dispute that the units at Haridwar and Kashipur are entitled for deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. The assessee had submitted audit report

DILIP KUMAR AGARWAL LEGAL HEIR OF SUSHILA DEVI AGARWAL,VIBHAV NAGAR, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(5), AGRA, AGRA

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

section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. The delay of 48 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeals stands condoned as per her contentions/averments explaining reasonable cause on account of the situation beyond her control

RAMBALRAAM CHAINSS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Rambalraam Chainss Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 1/98 & 1/99, Kasera Bazar, Ward-1(1)(1), Johari Bazar, Agra Fort- Agra 282003, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcr0768H Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the income of the assessee could be determined as per the new concessional tax regime provided under section 115BAB of the Act or not. Rambalraam Chainss Pvt. Ltd 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee

SH RANJEET KUMAR SHARMA ,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and e-filed of his return of income on 15.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,04,818/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS

BHARTIYA SADBHAWNA MANCH,JHANSI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 266/Agr/2025 and 267/Agr/2025 are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 80G(5) of the Act were rejected. ITA No.266 & 267/Agr/2025 2. At the very outset, it has been brought to the notice of the Bench that both these appeals were filed on 08.05.2025 against the impugned orders dated 29.11.2024 and 30.12.2024 by a delay of about 94 days and 66 days respectively. Assessee has submitted through the delay condonation

BHARTIYA SADBHAWNA MANCH,JHANSI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 266/Agr/2025 and 267/Agr/2025 are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 80G(5) of the Act were rejected. ITA No.266 & 267/Agr/2025 2. At the very outset, it has been brought to the notice of the Bench that both these appeals were filed on 08.05.2025 against the impugned orders dated 29.11.2024 and 30.12.2024 by a delay of about 94 days and 66 days respectively. Assessee has submitted through the delay condonation

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- Neeta Agarwal “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 30/41, Chhipitola Ward-1 (1)(1), Agra Agra Pan :Aarpj3189L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal , Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 Order

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed his return of income on 15.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,46,660/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee as claimed, remained engaged as a scrap

DEEPAK KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O SHRI LATE RATAN LAL AGRAWAL,TIKAMGARH vs. ITO, TIKAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Deepak Kumar Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward No. 12, Purani Tikamgarh Tehsil, New Housing Board, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Axapa3069L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 297 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The only issue