CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

2. The learned counsel appearing on either side would submit that the Judgment of this Court reported in 2023 (10) TMI 1141 [ M/s. True Blue Voice India Private Ltd., and another Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - TDS, Chennai and others] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 3. The relevant portion of the said Judgment

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

2. The learned counsel appearing on either side would submit that the Judgment of this Court reported in 2023 (10) TMI 1141 [ M/s. True Blue Voice India Private Ltd., and another Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - TDS, Chennai and others] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 3. The relevant portion of the said Judgment

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

2. The learned counsel appearing on either side would submit that the Judgment of this Court reported in 2023 (10) TMI 1141 [ M/s. True Blue Voice India Private Ltd., and another Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - TDS, Chennai and others] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 3. The relevant portion of the said Judgment

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

2. The learned counsel appearing on either side would submit that the Judgment of this Court reported in 2023 (10) TMI 1141 [ M/s. True Blue Voice India Private Ltd., and another Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - TDS, Chennai and others] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 3. The relevant portion of the said Judgment

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

2. The learned counsel appearing on either side would submit that the Judgment of this Court reported in 2023 (10) TMI 1141 [ M/s. True Blue Voice India Private Ltd., and another Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - TDS, Chennai and others] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 3. The relevant portion of the said Judgment

CIT(A), DEHRADUN vs. CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

2. The learned counsel appearing on either side would submit that the Judgment of this Court reported in 2023 (10) TMI 1141 [ M/s. True Blue Voice India Private Ltd., and another Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - TDS, Chennai and others] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 3. The relevant portion of the said Judgment

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), , HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDEANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HLDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR RURAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A),, HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR RURAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HLDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR RURAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BIJNOR RURAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), HALDWANI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 | P a g e ITA Nos.195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 & 217/DDN/2019 delay of 18 days in filing these appeals. Having taken note of the averments made in applications filed seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay

ASTLEY CONSTRUCTION,DEHRADUN vs. ITO (TDS), DEHRADUN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & (Through Video Conferencing)

2. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in impassing late filing fees of Rs. 34,733/- u/s 201 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The order passed is arbitrary, against the provisions of law and facts of the case. 4. Any other ground arising at the time of or before hearing of appeal.” 3. The return