EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,1, NEW PATEL NAGAR, KONCH, JALAUN, KONCH S.O (JALAUN) vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

84 Not condoned 2.1. It was submitted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that the delay in filing of the appeal was due to the fact that the assessee could not access e-mail account due to the breakdown of its computer and non- availability of the technical expert in small town like Konch. The reasons submitted before

EBENEZER SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI,KONCH, JALAUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

84 Not condoned 2.1. It was submitted by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that the delay in filing of the appeal was due to the fact that the assessee could not access e-mail account due to the breakdown of its computer and non- availability of the technical expert in small town like Konch. The reasons submitted before

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

84-85 days. Delay condonation applications along with an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Account officer of the appellant are on record, wherein, it has been stated that the delay was caused due to the transfer of the authority of the appellant Hospital and resumption of duty by the succeeding authority on 28.09.2025. We treat the un-rebutted cause

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

84-85 days. Delay condonation applications along with an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Account officer of the appellant are on record, wherein, it has been stated that the delay was caused due to the transfer of the authority of the appellant Hospital and resumption of duty by the succeeding authority on 28.09.2025. We treat the un-rebutted cause

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

84-85 days. Delay condonation applications along with an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Account officer of the appellant are on record, wherein, it has been stated that the delay was caused due to the transfer of the authority of the appellant Hospital and resumption of duty by the succeeding authority on 28.09.2025. We treat the un-rebutted cause

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

84-85 days. Delay condonation applications along with an affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Account officer of the appellant are on record, wherein, it has been stated that the delay was caused due to the transfer of the authority of the appellant Hospital and resumption of duty by the succeeding authority on 28.09.2025. We treat the un-rebutted cause

WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI, M.P. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS CENTRE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

84,308/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There was a delay of 400 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was not admitted. 4. Against

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)

84(Del) wherein it was held as under:- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that

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)

84(Del) wherein it was held as under:- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that

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)

84(Del) wherein it was held as under:- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that

BUNDELKHAND GRAMOTTHAN EVAM SHAIKCHHIK VIKAS SAMITI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

condoned by CIT(E), Lucknow]. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by disallowing the amount based on Form-10B. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act and the same was denied. 5. It was brought to my notice that while certifying the Form-10B, the auditor of assessee has, by mistake, filled

GORA BAI SAHU ,ASHOK NAGAR vs. ITO ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Gora Bai Sahu, Income Tax Officer, Shri Ram Charan Sahu & Ashok Nagar, L/H Late Gora Bai, Sony Vs Madhya Pradesh-473331 Colony, Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh-473331 Pan-Fdzps8877N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order

84 years husband of late Gora Bai Sahu (assessee in this case). The said affidavit dated 29.03.2025 filed by Shri Ram Charan Sahu is reproduced as under:- 4 ITA No.35/Agr/2023 2.1. Further, the affidavit dated 29.03.2025 of Advocate, Shri Mahavir Chaudary, explaining the reasons for not filing the appeal in time is as submitted by the assessee, which is reproduced

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

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

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

84- State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 86 City Center, BPLS06686B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Orcha, Tikamgarh 87- 40-41/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 88 City Center, BPLS11862E A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior karchal, Sheopur Appellant by Shri Ashok Vijyayabargiya, CA And Shri Rajendra Khatwani, CA Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR PAN/TAN S. ITA No. Appellant

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

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

84- State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 86 City Center, BPLS06686B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Orcha, Tikamgarh 87- 40-41/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 88 City Center, BPLS11862E A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior karchal, Sheopur Appellant by Shri Ashok Vijyayabargiya, CA And Shri Rajendra Khatwani, CA Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR PAN/TAN S. ITA No. Appellant