DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

4 ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 would also be entitled to consider as to whether the petitioner's case would fall within one of the conditions stipulated under Section 119(2)(c).” So keeping in view the above facts your honour will find that the assessee has made all compliances in time but due to technical default the return uploaded could

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

4 ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 would also be entitled to consider as to whether the petitioner's case would fall within one of the conditions stipulated under Section 119(2)(c).” So keeping in view the above facts your honour will find that the assessee has made all compliances in time but due to technical default the return uploaded could

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

4 ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 would also be entitled to consider as to whether the petitioner's case would fall within one of the conditions stipulated under Section 119(2)(c).” So keeping in view the above facts your honour will find that the assessee has made all compliances in time but due to technical default the return uploaded could

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

4 ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 would also be entitled to consider as to whether the petitioner's case would fall within one of the conditions stipulated under Section 119(2)(c).” So keeping in view the above facts your honour will find that the assessee has made all compliances in time but due to technical default the return uploaded could

MANTOLA CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX- 21,

The appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

delay is condoned. The applications stand disposed off. ITA Nos. 128/2017, 129/2017, 130/2017, 131/2017, 132/2017, 133/2017 & 134/2017 3. Issue notice. ITA 128/2017 & Connected matters Page 1 of 4 4. Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra accepts notice for the respondents. 5. The question urged by the assessee is whether the impugned order of the ITAT to the extent it disallowed the deduction claimed

SEHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LIMITED SUAR,RAMPUR vs. ITO , RAMPUR

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.924/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2020-21) Sekhari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Village Dhanori, Suar, Rampur, Up 244924 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aafts-7805-L

80P of the Act and also made addition of rental income Rs.24,000/- . Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 06.09.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was time barred by 236 days. The assessee filed application for condonation

SHREE BANKEY BIHARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him the same is reproduced below:

section 80P of the Act he had rejected the contention of Appellant Society. The present appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order of Addl./JCIT(A). 4. The Appellant Society, apart from following the process of filing appeal against Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, had also filed an application before CIT, Exemption, Lucknow for condonation of delay

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD UNN,SHAMLI vs. AO NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

4,21,05,997/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act; addition of Rs. 10,20,921/- on account of unexplained income under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act; disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,94,829/- and addition

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD UNN,SHAMLI vs. AO NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

4,21,05,997/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act; addition of Rs. 10,20,921/- on account of unexplained income under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act; disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,94,829/- and addition

KRISHNA GOPAL SARAF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 28, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

4,21,05,997/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act; addition of Rs. 10,20,921/- on account of unexplained income under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act; disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,94,829/- and addition

ALLIED FINANCE P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Co-Operative Cane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Development Union Ltd., Ward-1(2), Cane Union, Hapur, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaajc0224M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2012-13

condoned: Sl. No. Delay in filing the appeal Appeal number 1. 1894 days 4068/Del/2024 2. 2108 days 4083/Del/2024 3. 1850 days 4084/Del/2024 4. 2108 days 4085/Del/2024 5. 1851 days 4086/Del/2024 6. 2075 days 4087/Del/2024 7. 1741 days 4088/Del/2024 8. 2377 days 4089/Del/2024 3. Both the learned representatives fairly state during the course of hearing that the assessee’s identical sole

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), GURGAON, GURUGRAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY LTD MORNA,MORNA MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. AO NFAC DELHI, NFAC DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Vs. Assessing Officer, Development Society Ltd., Nfac, Delhi Morna, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaefc0580D (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing the assessee’s lower appeal stand condoned. 4. The Revenue’s second vehement contention is that both the learned lower authorities have rightly disallowed the assessee’s section 80P

ISPAT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 NEW DELHI

Bench: The Next Date Of Hearing.

condonation of delay of 311 days in re-filing the appeal] 2. The appellant is a thrift and credit society. The appellant has been denied deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”]. 3. Mr Salil Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that deduction ought to have been

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LIMITED,BADAYUN vs. ACIT - 2, MORADABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Vs. Acit-2, Limited, Moradabad C/O-Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aazfs2514E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

condoning the delay in filing of appeal owing to Covid- 19 pandemic and without considering that the delay period is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo moto Writ petition No. 3/2020 and also by the CBDT Circular 10/2021 dated 25.05.2021. WITHOUT PREHUDICE TO ABOVE (2) That the Authorities below erred on facts

COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

section 143(3) of the Act deduction u/s 80P was denied. 4. When the matter was agitated before the CIT(A), there was a considerable delay in filing of the appeal. The main reason for the delay was stated to be transfer and postings of the officers. This reason did not find any favour with

M/S. COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

section 143(3) of the Act deduction u/s 80P was denied. 4. When the matter was agitated before the CIT(A), there was a considerable delay in filing of the appeal. The main reason for the delay was stated to be transfer and postings of the officers. This reason did not find any favour with