SANJAY SAHU,BHOPAL vs. THE TH4E ITO 2(1), BYHOPAL

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2010-11 Sanjay Sahu, Ito 2(1), H.No.98-A Sector, Bhopal बनाम/ Kasturba Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Apyps1707D Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

80C of the Act, amounting to Rs.45,271/-. 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 1 year and 63 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by assessee’s affidavit on stamp. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR narrated

SHRI AVIJIT SHASTRI,INDOR vs. THE ITO 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoning the delay in filing of appeal which was attributable to reasonable cause. The Appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) and AO be set aside to the AO to decide the matter afresh on merits based on evidences and documents. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay in filing such appeals before us. ITA No. 21/Ind/2022 (A.Y. 2009-10):- 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2009 declaring income at Rs.1,76,580/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,40,576/-. On the basis

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay in filing such appeals before us. ITA No. 21/Ind/2022 (A.Y. 2009-10):- 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2009 declaring income at Rs.1,76,580/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,40,576/-. On the basis

NARAYAN SINGH NAYAK,JHABUA vs. THE ITO 2, RATLAM

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Narayan Singh Nayak, Ito-2, बनाम/ 1, Ranu Colony, Ratlam Jhabua Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abapn9853D Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhavar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2023

condone delay and the appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the original assessment of assessee was framed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 19.12.2016 passed by ITO, Jhabua [“Jhabua ITO”] at a total income of Rs. 5,24,890/-. Subsequently, the PCIT, Ujjain passed