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

22. The following general principles were laid down and it is these principles which guide the Court in approaching the question of condonation of delay: "And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result

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

22. The following general principles were laid down and it is these principles which guide the Court in approaching the question of condonation of delay: "And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result

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

condoning the delay. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both side i.e. Assessee and Revenue for all the cases. 7. The common issue involved in these appeals is that the AO imposed late fees u/s 234E of the Act., where the enabling clause (c) was inserted in the section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Which has been confirmed

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

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both side i.e. Assessee and Revenue for all the cases. 7. The common issue involved in these appeals is that the AO imposed late fees u/s 234E of the Act., where the enabling clause (c) was inserted in the section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Which has been confirmed

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

condoning the delay. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both side i.e. Assessee and Revenue for all the cases. 7. The common issue involved in these appeals is that the AO imposed late fees u/s 234E of the Act., where the enabling clause (c) was inserted in the section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Which has been confirmed

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

condoning the delay. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both side i.e. Assessee and Revenue for all the cases. 7. The common issue involved in these appeals is that the AO imposed late fees u/s 234E of the Act., where the enabling clause (c) was inserted in the section 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Which has been confirmed

JAGVIR SINGH KUNTAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2), MATHURA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has deposited total cash of Rs.50.12 lakhs in the bank account during the year under consideration and from 01.04.2016 till 08.11.2016, total cash of Rs.34,22,200/- was deposited by the assessee in the bank account and during the period 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017, assessee has deposited cash

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

22-12-2023 applying the tax rate under section 115BAA of the Act instead of section 115BAB of the Act. This error arose due to filing of Form 10 IC under section 115BAA of the Act on 10-2-2021 by the assessee due to inadvertence. The assessee however had duly rectified the same by filing the correct Form

OM PRAKASH,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS, HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Om Prakash, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Baramai, Ward-4(3)(4), Sadabad, Hathras Hathras (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dkbpp7713K

22 days. Considering the reason adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. The preliminary legal issue raised by the assessee is challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section

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

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

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

PANKAJ SUJORIA,MANSAROVAR COLONY vs. ITO 1(1), GWL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Pankaj Sujoria, Vs. Ito, A-481, Mansarovar Ward-1(1), Colony, Shahpura, Gwalior Bhopal, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arzps0280L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is challenging the action of the lower authorities in not granting the credit for TDS of Rs 32,318/-. Pankaj Sujoria 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

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

22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Kolkata’s order dated 31.07.2024 in DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067193092(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067194796(1) and ITA Nos.377, 380 & 381/Agr/2024 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067196740(1) involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case

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)

22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Kolkata’s order dated 31.07.2024 in DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067193092(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067194796(1) and ITA Nos.377, 380 & 381/Agr/2024 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067196740(1) involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case