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

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)

condone the delay in furnishing of Form No. 68 by the assessee. 15. From the above, it could be seen that Assessee had duly proved its bonafide intention of settling the complete dispute by accepting to the assessment framed by the Learned AO. The Assessee had paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the Learned

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)

condone the delay in furnishing of Form No. 68 by the assessee. 15. From the above, it could be seen that Assessee had duly proved its bonafide intention of settling the complete dispute by accepting to the assessment framed by the Learned AO. The Assessee had paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the Learned

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)

condone the delay in furnishing of Form No. 68 by the assessee. 15. From the above, it could be seen that Assessee had duly proved its bonafide intention of settling the complete dispute by accepting to the assessment framed by the Learned AO. The Assessee had paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the Learned

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

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

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- Neeta Agarwal “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 30/41, Chhipitola Ward-1 (1)(1), Agra Agra Pan :Aarpj3189L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal , Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 Order

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed his return of income on 15.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,46,660/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee as claimed, remained engaged as a scrap

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

condonation of delay before us. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such 15 days delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and admits the same for adjudication as the Department has not raised any objection. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is a Co-operative Marketing Society registered under Madhya Co-operative

S.P. TEA ESTATE (INDIA)(P)(LTD),GWALIOR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -2, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10] S.P.Tea Estate (India) (P)(Ltd.), Acit, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Inderganj Police Circle-2, Station, Jayendraganj Lashkar, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, City Center, Gwalior, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh-474002 Madhya Pradesh-474009 Pan-Aaics2523F Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 976 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. That the Learned CIT(A) Passed the order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee Hence, the order so passes is against the Principle of Natural Justice and here should be remanded

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay of about 263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during

RAJAT GOEL (HUF),MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3)(1), MATHURA, MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

section - 249(3), the appeal filed by the appellant should have been admitted because the delay of 54 days in filing of 1st appeal was on account of sufficient and reasonable cause duly explained to Ld. NFAC. The appellate order dated - 08.03.2025 passed by Ld. NFAC, Delhi is liable to be set aside. 2. That in view of reasonable cause

RADHIKA GARG,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

68 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. I find that the assessee vide ground number 5 had raised a preliminary ground stating that the statutory notice under section

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The following grounds have been raised: “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(l)(c) of the I. T. Act. 2. Because the assessee duly discharged her onus of proving the cash credits to be genuine. The addition

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case

MOHD ARIF,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), ETWAH, ETAWAH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 PAN-ANAPA8542J Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Sushil Maheshwari, CA Respondent by Shri Anil Kumar Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 ORDER, PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee

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

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

68, 61, State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57 City Center, BPLS11822G 85,,76,77 India, Branch- Gwalior /Ag/2018 Raghaogarh, A.Y.2013-14 Guna 58- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 70 & 64 State Bank of 59 City Center, BPLS11718A /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Mayana, guna 60- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 69 & 65 State Bank of 61- City Center, BPLS11689G /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Pagagra

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

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

68, 61, State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 57 City Center, BPLS11822G 85,,76,77 India, Branch- Gwalior /Ag/2018 Raghaogarh, A.Y.2013-14 Guna 58- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 70 & 64 State Bank of 59 City Center, BPLS11718A /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Mayana, guna 60- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 69 & 65 State Bank of 61- City Center, BPLS11689G /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior Pagagra