PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay caused in filing this second appeal stands condoned. 3. The brief facts state that the appellant assessee filed his return of Income for the year under consideration, declaring total Income at Rs. 5,24,040/- and worked out long term capital gain/loss of (-) 2,72,271/- on sale of two plots of land as under. 1) Land 03/12/2018 Value

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

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

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