RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, , KATNI

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

delay in the filing of the appeal was condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that as per the information available on the insight portal, the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the relevant period for Rs. 92,44,000/- from Sh. Sanjeev Prabhakar in the name of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi

M/S. VALLABH MARKET,GADARWARA vs. PR. CIT-1, , JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed

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

condoned by the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the matter are that the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of seven partners in the business of builders and developers. It filed e-return of income on 01-10-2016 bearing e-filing acknowledgement Number 476273261011016 declaring total income at Rs. (-) 60,767, which was selected

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NFAC, ITO BALAGHAT, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless Appeal 1, Ward No. 9, Ram Mandir Center (Nfac) Road, Katangi, Balaghat (Mp)- Delhi (Jurisdiction Officer, 481445. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat (Mp)-110001. Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 23.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

delay application in spite of having reasonable case as submitted by assessee henceforth the order of CIT(A) may kindly be quashed. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case LD CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue on merit & simply rejecting the appeal by disallowing condonation of filling appeal application. ., The order passed

SHRI VISHAL SETHI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15

condone the delay of 55 days in presenting this appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 The assessee’s case is that the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as the it travels beyond the scope of enquiry for which the assessee’s return of income for relevant year, filed on 6.9.2014, was selected for verification by the issue of notice