SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

119 of the Act and reproduced Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II(Technical) of the Manual, which reads as under:- “9. Approval for assessment – An assessment order under Chapter XIV-B can be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/Addl.CIT (for the period from 30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

119 of the Act and reproduced Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II(Technical) of the Manual, which reads as under:- “9. Approval for assessment – An assessment order under Chapter XIV-B can be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/Addl.CIT (for the period from 30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority

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)

119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for Form No. 68 being filed after a lapse of time by stating the following reasons:- a) There is no dispute that the units at Haridwar and Kashipur are entitled for deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. The assessee had submitted audit report

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)

119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for Form No. 68 being filed after a lapse of time by stating the following reasons:- a) There is no dispute that the units at Haridwar and Kashipur are entitled for deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. The assessee had submitted audit report

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)

119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for Form No. 68 being filed after a lapse of time by stating the following reasons:- a) There is no dispute that the units at Haridwar and Kashipur are entitled for deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. The assessee had submitted audit report

LAXMI FOUNDATION,FIROZABAD vs. ITO EXEMPTION AGRA (CPC) , AGRA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed the assessee’s claim of section 11 exemption; in the course of section 143(1) processing dated 20.03.2020 as upheld in the impugned lower appellate discussion reading as follows : “5. Decision: After carefully going through the facts of the case, intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the material on record, the grounds

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD,4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing ITR and 10B as both was filed

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO, WARD, 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing ITR and 10B as both was filed

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WALFARE SANSTHAN ,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing ITR and 10B as both was filed

JAN SEWA KHADI GRAMODHOG SEWA SANSTHAN,ETAWAH vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.254/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jan Seva Khadi Gramodhog Adit (Cpc_ Sewa Sansthan Bengaluru बनाम/ Vs. 64, Katra Sewa Kali Etawah 206001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaaj-6502-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Navin Gargh (Advocate) - Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

119(2)(b). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. We find that this issue is covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Susila Educational Trust vs ITO (167 Taxmann.com 326). This decision pertains to AY 2018-19. The bench, taking notice of CBDT Circular No.02/2018 dated

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

B' (CLPB\n5-5)\niii) VUDATHA VANI RAO v. Income-tax Officer* [2024] 159 taxmann.com\n1394 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) IN THE ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 'SMC'\n(CLPB 6-8)\niv) Urban Improvement Co Pvt Ltd vs. ITO ward 27(2)Delhi- ITAT Delhi ITA no.\n7496/Del/2019 AY 2015-16 (CLPB 9-17)\nv) Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

119\n(Delhi), held that the initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary\nto obviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i)identity of the investors; (ii) their\ncreditworthiness; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. The department's exercise starts\nonly when these three ingredients are established prima facie, by the assessee