Search: condonation of delay

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Deemed Dividendclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 2639 Section 143(3)3 Addition to Income3 Condonation of Delay3 Section 2(22)(e)2 Deemed Dividend2 Limitation/Time-bar2 Revision u/s 2632

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

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

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 8. It is observed that the appellant has issued 2,00,000 shares each of face value Rs. 10/- to its existing shareholders on a premium of Rs.40/- per share. Thus, the issue price per share stands at Rs.50/-. As the appellant did not furnish any report

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 180/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(d)Section 2(22)(e)

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 3. The sole issue for our adjudication relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted purchases. 4. Facts in Brief:– In this case, during the year, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading

PRAMOD AGRAWAL ,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal 2 & 3 are dismissed

ITA 43/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sh. Pramod Agrawal (Huf) Pr. Cit-2, 301, Sai Ankur Apartments Nagpur-440 001 Ramdaspeth Vs. Nagpur-440 010 Pan:Aaihp 2699N (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and reopened u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) on the reason that, the assessee has claimed LTCG exemption under section 10 in ITR in respect of Capital Gain trading in a Penny Stock Company. Accordingly, a notice

SAGAR FIBRES PVT. LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 57/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

condone the delay in filing the present appeal. We also find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 10/01/2022, passed in M.A. no.21 of 2022, in M.A. no.665 of 2021, in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) no.3 of 2020, the limitation period for filing the appeal was extended upto 29/05/2022. In view of the above, since the present