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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 78 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 effective issue

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

2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 217 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. Shobha Devi 3. The first issue

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

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

32 & 33 State Bank of 33 City Center, BPLS06413B /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Laundi Mahoba Road Chattarpur 34- 50-56/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of 40 City Center, BPLS11851A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior BPLS02712D Bhander SBN, BPLS11851A Datia 41- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57-60 & 78-80 State Bank of 46 City Center, BPLS11614B /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14

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

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

32 & 33 State Bank of 33 City Center, BPLS06413B /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Laundi Mahoba Road Chattarpur 34- 50-56/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of 40 City Center, BPLS11851A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior BPLS02712D Bhander SBN, BPLS11851A Datia 41- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57-60 & 78-80 State Bank of 46 City Center, BPLS11614B /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14

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)

2 Kalptru Vikash Samiti 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a charitable society duly registered under section 12AA of the Act vide order dated 19-12-2002 passed by Learned CIT Gwalior. Later the assessee was also registered with the Learned CIT (Exemptions) under section 12AB

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

2 Smt. Simranjeet Singh 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the PCIT’s revision directions herein have termed the Assessing Officer’s regular assessment dated 10.012.2018 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of Revenue on account of his alleged failure in having not examined assessee’s credit entries involving in aggregate amount of Rs.3,32