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 explained is not falling within the provisions of section 273B of ITA 1961. I therefore hold that appellant has failed to meet the tests laid down in IT Act, 1961 and Ld.JAO has rightly imposed penalty. Dismissed also as the Hon'ble Cochin ITAT in the case of M/s. Paravur Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs ITO in ITA No.105/Coch/2023

SURYA KUMAR GUPTA,ITARSI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD 1, ITARSI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Gupta Jewellers, Sarafa Bazar Ward-1, Itarsi

5. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Gupta Jewellers, Sarafa Bazar, Itarsi and a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act was carried out at the business premises

M/S SAMPOORNA SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EX), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

section 80-G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bhopal (‘CIT(E)’) vide order dated 25/10/2019. 2. The appeal, filed on 21/9/2020, is delayed by 262 days. As explained in the condonation

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

RAJMATA KAVITESHWARI DEVI,SATNA vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SATNA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him without appreciating that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide, beyond the control of the appellant and the appellant was not benefitted from filing the appeal belatedly and even otherwise after the order passed by Hon'ble High court which was implemented by the learned PCIT the date