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

36)beyond the time prescribed u/s. 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that application for condonation of delay duly supported by the affidavit of assessee are duly filed with ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra which are placed on record in file at Page 1-5 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR ,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

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

36, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kasturi Vihar, Deori Road, Ward 1(1)(2), Agra. Agra-282001 (UP). PAN :AVAPK7804R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ankur Agarwal, C.A. Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.10.2025 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both these appeals have been preferred by the assessee against separate

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO,WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

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

36, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kasturi Vihar, Deori Road, Ward 1(1)(2), Agra. Agra-282001 (UP). PAN :AVAPK7804R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ankur Agarwal, C.A. Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.10.2025 ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both these appeals have been preferred by the assessee against separate

DEEPENDRA KUMAR,ETAH vs. ITO,WARD-4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

delay of about 944 days caused in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that based on the information available with the department, it was noticed that the appellant assessee had deposited cash aggregating to ₹14,35,000/- on various dates in his bank 2 | P a g e account No. 0370101027294 maintained with Canara

KASTURI DEVI,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ETAH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

delay caused in filing this appeal stands condoned. 3. Brief facts state that Smt. Kasturi Devi enjoys income from sale and purchase of potatoes and garlic(Lahsun), pension income, agricultural income and interest income. She filed her return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 31.12.2020, declaring total income at Rs.3,36,650/-. It was found that

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

section 234B and 234C of the Act by the learned CPC. When the matter was carried before the learned CITA with a delay of 36 days in preferring the appeal before the learned CITA, the learned CITA preferred not to condone

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

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

SATENDRA KUMAR KHARE,MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

36,500/- with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- as per 7(b) c Commission income:- as para 7(a) Rs.1,65,056/- d Assessed Income Rs.50,91,484/- 4. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground

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