SUNILKUMAR RAJENDRA RAI,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

10. The delay in submission of present appeal is absolutely unintentional and bonafide and inadvertent mistake on the part of the accountant of assessee and is sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filling of appeal. There is no malafide intention to delay the filing of appeal. In view of above the delay in filing appeal may kindly be condoned

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

section 10(23C) of the Act, after placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "5. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of All Angels Educational Society (supra) while considering the issue whether the Id. CIT (Exemption) has power to condone the delay

SWARGIY GOPALRAO GAWANDE BAHUUDESHIY SANSTHA BHIDI,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD 4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

10, affirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 2. The assessee is a registered Trust is exclusively acting as an educational trust and is engaged in imparting technical and other education to 2 Swargiy Gopalrao Gawande Bahuudeshiy Sanstha Bhidi ITA no.457/Nag./2024 students. The case

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. However, a cost of ` 5,000, is levied upon the assessee for the delay in filing the petition, which should be paid to the account of The Nagpur High Court Legal Service Committee. In all fairness, the learned Counsel for the assessee agreed

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

M/S WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.253 & 254/Nag/2018 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Western Coalfields Ltd. Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-400 001. Pan : Aaacw1578L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

condone the delay in respect of both these appeals and proceed to hear them on merits. Adjudication of grounds in appeal Memo 6. At the time of hearing through video conference, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that common grounds were raised in both the appeals i.e. whether the assessee has obligation to deduct tax at source in respect

M/S WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.253 & 254/Nag/2018 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Western Coalfields Ltd. Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-400 001. Pan : Aaacw1578L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

condone the delay in respect of both these appeals and proceed to hear them on merits. Adjudication of grounds in appeal Memo 6. At the time of hearing through video conference, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that common grounds were raised in both the appeals i.e. whether the assessee has obligation to deduct tax at source in respect

VIJAY ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WD,-8(4), NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay in respect of both these appeals and proceed to hear them on merits. B. On Merits 7. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a case where the assessee made contractual payments to M/s. P.T. Sumitra Mitra Jaya (PTSMJ). The assessee failed to make the TDS from the said contract

SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO,AMRAVATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. However, a cost of ` 5,000, is levied upon the assessee for the delay in filing the petition, which should be paid to the account of The Nagpur High Court Legal Service Committee. In all fairness, the learned Counsel for the assessee agreed

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

STELLAR REFRACTORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

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

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

delay is covered / condonable in view of Section 10 of General Clauses Act 1977 as well as Section 4 of the Limitation

SHRI VYANKANATH MAHARAJ SHIKSHAN SANSTHA MURTIZAPUR,AKOLA vs. ITO WARD - 2, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

delay of 45 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned and we proceed for adjudication. 5. Shri Dewani, learned Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order for rejection by drawing our attention to the operative part of the impugned order dated 20/03/2024, contained in Para–6 & 7, is reproduced below:– “6. The assessee furnished reply

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTION, NAGPUR

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

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, as delay in filing of appeal was not condoned and as a result of which the appeal was not admitted and was rejected accordingly. While going through the material available on record, we find that the assessee trust has satisfactorily explained the cause of delay due to the ill–health

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD 3, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, as delay in filing of appeal was not condoned and as a result of which the appeal was not admitted and was rejected accordingly. While going through the material available on record, we find that the assessee trust has satisfactorily explained the cause of delay due to the ill–health

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos