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

gain anything by filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT . Therefore, in the interest of justice, I 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

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

gain anything by filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT . Therefore, in the interest of justice, I 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

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

short] dated 16/05/2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 246A by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

short) arising out of the order passed u/s\n143(3) of the Act dated 10.03.2021.\n2. From the perusal of the record, it is found that the appeal is\nfiled delay by 239 days. With respect to the delay an affidavit is filed\nby the assessee along with separate application for condonation of\ndelay wherein it is stated that

VARDAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), 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: 2012-13]

condone this delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case: In this case, the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015 at the assessed income of Rs.16,81,270/- after making an addition of Rs.2 lakhs. Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after obtaining the approval

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

short] dated 27.03.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 15.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that there is delay in filing of appeal by the assessee

SADHANA GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO, WARD4(2),4, MAINPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

short term capital 8,46,000 4,60,000 - gains on sale of immovable property 2. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the assessee has filed these appeals on the ground, in addition to many other grounds, that the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex parte orders without affording proper opportunities of being heard to the appellant/assessee

SADHANA GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO, WARD4(2),4, MAINPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

short term capital 8,46,000 4,60,000 - gains on sale of immovable property 2. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the assessee has filed these appeals on the ground, in addition to many other grounds, that the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex parte orders without affording proper opportunities of being heard to the appellant/assessee

SADHANA GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO, WARD4(2),4, MAINPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

short term capital 8,46,000 4,60,000 - gains on sale of immovable property 2. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the assessee has filed these appeals on the ground, in addition to many other grounds, that the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex parte orders without affording proper opportunities of being heard to the appellant/assessee

SUMIT JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD(2)(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

short term capital gain not shown by the assessee on sale of a plot of land for a consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- against its valuation u/s. 50C of Rs.29,26,000/-. 2. At the very outset, learned representative for the assessee has drawn the attention of the Bench towards assessee’s delay condonation

AKHLESH KUMAR TIWARI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

short term capital loss of Rs.51,050/- and on sale of second plot, he claimed long-term capital gain of Rs.7,33,457/-, claiming its deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee had invested Rs.25,85,000/- in purchase of new residential property. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice