KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 271A of the Act was issued to it vide DIN and Letter No. ITBA/PNL/F/17/2025-26 1076484849(1) dated 27.05.2025. It was for this reason that the appeal of the assessee was delayed and it was prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned. In his petition, the assessee cited several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B.1) In this case, order under section 271B of the I.T. Act was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) levying penalty amounting to Rs.1,50

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,KOTMA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE,KATNI, KATNI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) dated 04/12/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The appeal was heard on 27/05/2022 on the aspect of condonation of delay; the appeal being time barred by 50

SHRI SADGURU MAHILA BAHUODESHIYA SAMITI MARYADIT JANKIKUND CHITRAKOOT,CHITRAKOOT, SATNA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental I.T.A. No.52/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 Representative for Revenue did not express

JAINAM GROUP CHHINDWARA,CHHINDWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

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

delay. Thereafter, relying upon various case laws he held\nthat the assessee was guilty of gross negligence and inaction and therefore, he\ndismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.\n4. Aggrieved with the in limine disposal of its appeal, the assessee has\ncome in appeal before us. Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the\nld. AR) submitted

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER JURISDICTION OFFICER- ITO, BALAGHAT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

condoned the delay so that the assessment can take place on merits. 8) CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that AO has proposed re-opening under section 147 on the basis of escaped income of cash deposition of RS 13,24,500 and has made addition of Rs 28,50

NAGENDRA SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2(5) , JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Nagendra Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer Vs. Ward - 2(5), Gwalior Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Ctops 5067G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mahesh Agarwal, Fca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2022

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide Order dated 25/10/2019. 2. At the outset, it was observed by the Bench that the appeal is delayed by 29 days. There is, however, a condonation petition on record, which states that though the papers for preparation and filing

JAIN WARE HOUSE,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 69A. 3. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. There was a delay of approximately six months in filing the appeal but the ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay. The ld. CIT(A) noted that during 2 A.Y. 2018-19 Jain Ware House the course of assessment, the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that

SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that