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

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

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

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

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

condone the delay of 315 days(actual delay 224 days) in filing this appeal in ITA no. 113/Agr/2024 belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the assessee, and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition , Anantnag v. Mst. Katijee

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)

32,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic pipes and fittings and containers of plastics at its manufacturing units situated in integrated industrial state. The assessee ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd company has claimed deduction under section 80IC of the Act for 3 different units i.e. 2 units located at Haridwar

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)

32,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic pipes and fittings and containers of plastics at its manufacturing units situated in integrated industrial state. The assessee ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd company has claimed deduction under section 80IC of the Act for 3 different units i.e. 2 units located at Haridwar

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)

32,770/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic pipes and fittings and containers of plastics at its manufacturing units situated in integrated industrial state. The assessee ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd company has claimed deduction under section 80IC of the Act for 3 different units i.e. 2 units located at Haridwar

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

1-3 ITO (TDS), AAACS 8577 K ITA.03,06 And State Bank of City Center, BPLS04808G 07 / Ag/ 2018 India, Main Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Branch- Bada, Gwalior 4-5. 4&8/Agr/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K A.Y.2013-14 City Center, BPLM02526G India, Branch- Gwalior Industrial Estate Hazira, Gwalior 6. 05/ Agr/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of AYs 2013-14 City

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

1-3 ITO (TDS), AAACS 8577 K ITA.03,06 And State Bank of City Center, BPLS04808G 07 / Ag/ 2018 India, Main Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Branch- Bada, Gwalior 4-5. 4&8/Agr/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K A.Y.2013-14 City Center, BPLM02526G India, Branch- Gwalior Industrial Estate Hazira, Gwalior 6. 05/ Agr/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of AYs 2013-14 City

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

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,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

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

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

1)(3), Agra (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal by 68 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest

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

1. The appeal in ITA No. 323/AGR/2025 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the Jr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. JCIT(A)’, in short] dated 03.01.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated

SHOBHA DEVI ,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHANSI,UP

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shobha Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 285, Suri Wali Gali, Ward-2(3)(1), Near Masjid Pratap Jhansi Pura Nagar, Sipri Bzaaar, Jhansi, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ainpd4091R Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

1. The appeal in ITA No. 429/AGR/2025 for AY 2018-19, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 20.11.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated

SMT. SIMRANJEET SINGH,AGRA vs. PR.CIT., AGRA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsmt. Simranjeet Singh Vs. Pr.Cit 158, Pratap Pura Sanjay Place, Agra Up- 282002 Agra 282002 Up "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Byeps9366J Appellant .. Respondent

32,33,625/- which involved three related parties namely Sh. Manjeet Singh, Sh. Paramjeet Singh an Sh. Surjeet Singh etc. 4. There would be hardly any dispute between the parties that not only the Assessing Officer had called for the assessee’s explanation qua the said entries by way of section 142(1) notice during the course of assessment