GURPALSINGH CHANANSINGH NAGRA,AKOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

condonation of delay explaining the cause of Gurpalsingh Chanansingh Nagra ITA no.206/Mum./2023 delay in filing the present appeal. The relevant part of the Affidavit is reproduced as under:– “AFFIDAVIT I, Gurpalsingh s/o Chanansingh Nagra, aged 63 years, resident of Akola having PAN AANPN6934H, sworn an affidavit and state as under: I filed my return of income for assessment year

M/S PHOENIX INFRA ESTATE INTERNATIONAL LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condonation of delay are as under:– “A. Applicant has filed the above appeal on against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 12/02/2018 passed under section 263 of the Act. The present appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation. The delay is of 2261 Days. Brief facts leading to the delay of filing the appeal are as under

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 6. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the facts are, the assessee is an Individual. For the year under consideration, on 31/01/2018, the assessee filed his return of income electronically, disclosing total income of ` 12,96,33,940. During the course of regular assessment framed under

THE ISMAILIA URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

income is not eligible for deduction. 5. It appears that there is a delay of 62 days in filing the appeal. The condonation petition along with the supporting affidavit has been perused. Being satisfied, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication. 6. Before us, the appellant has submitted the detailed submissions contained in page 6 to 21 of paper

NIMSHASKIYA MADHYANIK SHALEY KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD.,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condone the delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether the Ld. AO and CIT(A) is correct in disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,27,687/- from deduction claimed under Sec 80P as interest income on deposit nationalized

CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIT (E), INCOME TAX OFFICE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SETH ROAD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

business undertaking, if any etc. are not furnished. Thus, you have failed to comply with the provisions of sub- clause (a) of clause (ii) of second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ii) As per the provisions of Rule 11AA(2)(h) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the application in Form No.10AB shall

DNYANESHWAR BAPURAO CHUNADE,BHADRAWATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHANDRAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

condonation of delay, which reads as under:– “A. That the Assessee is a Individual, is in service with Bhadrawati Taluka Nagari Sahkari Pat Sanstha Society, duly registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act having principal place of business at Bhadrawati Dist. Chandrapur. B. That the employer of Assessee doing the business of banking since inception. C. That on Assessee

POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA GONDIA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, GONDIA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condoning the delay, accordingly we do so. 5. Before us, Shri Abhay Agrawal, Counsel appearing for the assessee invited our attention to the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) which is reproduced below for ready reference:– “5.2. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION: The appellant did not make any specific submission in this regard. However, he filed

CINE CORPORATION OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

Business Income and Rs. 17,500/- as income from Other Sources. On facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was not in existence during the year under consideration and action of the authorities being based on conjectures and surmises is liable to be quashed. (5) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming

JANKALYAN SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,TUMSAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, BHANDARA, BHANDARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay being minor, the same is hereby condoned. 4. The short issue that we need to adjudication relates to addition under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on account of interest income earned from Nationalised Bank by treating it as income from other sources. 5. The assessee is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co– operative Societies

ANANT RAMRAO CHAVAN,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing. 7. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 8. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condoned the nominal delay as explained in application and affidavit submitted and adjudicated the grounds on merits of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the merits of grounds on the basis of evidence on record. 6. The notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condoned the nominal delay as explained in application and affidavit submitted and adjudicated the grounds on merits of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the merits of grounds on the basis of evidence on record. 6. The notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid

PURUSHOTTAM NARAYANRAO JADHAO,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

business. Hence, it took further time for assessee to brief the counsel and provide all the relevant documents. That Counsel drafted the appeal and sent papers to the assessee for signature. This took time and finally the appeal is being filed on 5 March 2025 with a delay of 245 days. 3 Purshottam Narayanrao Jadhao ITA no.155/Nag./2025

SHUBHLAXMI LAND DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reason for the delay, as contended by the assessee in its application, are reproduced below:– 2 Shubhlaxmi Land Developers ITA no.362/Nag./2023 “Shubhlaxmi land developers is a partnership firm with mother and son as partners. Mother, Mrs. Ratnabai Mohadikar is the key business partner and takes all the major decisions related

AMOL BABANRAV KOLAKAR,MANGRULPIR vs. ITO WARD-2, AKOLA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

delay which is supported by Affidavit duly sworn. The contents of the application seeking condonation are as under:– “The above referred Appellant's order passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi on 18.12.2023. The same Appeal is filed on or before 17.02.2024 but the same is filed today 13.05.2024. Hence, the Appeal is late

SHYAMKUMAR CHANDULAL SUGANDH,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

delay of 147 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. I now proceed to dispose off the appeal on merit. 3 Shyamkumar Chanduulal Sugandh ITA no.303/Nag./2023 2. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is engaged in the business of brokerage and commission business of Betel Nuts (supari) as commission agent under the name and style of “M/s. Shyamkumar

M/S SANT YOGIRAJ URBAN CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry& Shri K.M. Roy

condoned the delay or not? 3. We observe that identical issue has also been dealt with by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Williamson M/s. Galaxy Co- Op HSG Society Ltd. Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 140 taxman.com 246 (Gauhati), by observing and holding as under: "Once the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that