BANK OF INDIA, DONGARGAON NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

condone the delay subject to cost of Rs 500/- for each of the sixteen appeals totaling to Rs 8,000/- to which the ld AR has agreed and submitted his acceptance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee is directed to deposit the said sum and submit the proof thereof to the Assessing officer under intimation to the Registry

BANK OF INDIA,MAHAL BRANCH NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS)CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

condone the delay subject to cost of Rs 500/- for each of the sixteen appeals totaling to Rs 8,000/- to which the ld AR has agreed and submitted his acceptance on behalf of the assessee. The assessee is directed to deposit the said sum and submit the proof thereof to the Assessing officer under intimation to the Registry

ASTAVINAYAK GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JANEPHAL vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON

In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly

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

section (3) empowers the CIT(A) to admit an appeal after the expiry of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period. As discussed in the preceding para, the present appellant has not been able to show any reasonable cause for filing the appeal late

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

condone the delay and proceed for adjudication. The short point of consideration is whether the imposition of late fee 5. u/s 234E before 01.06.23015 is justified or not? We find that the matter is already covered by the order of Nagpur Bench passed by the same constitution in the case of Bank of India (ITA Nos. 93, 94 and 95/Nag/2023

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

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

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

condone the delay of 405 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merit. We find that the Assessing Officer has also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The levy of penalty is dependent on such adjudication because the quantification of income is since qua non. Accordingly

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

condone the delay of 405 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merit. We find that the Assessing Officer has also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The levy of penalty is dependent on such adjudication because the quantification of income is since qua non. Accordingly

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

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

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

3 to section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, the trust does not fall within the exceptions provided under section 80G(5B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.2 Further, on the issue of investments in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) and bank accounts without their utilization for the stated objectives, the assessee has contended that these investments were

SHEPHALI ANIL MALVIYA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals (Ms

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

13 levying a late filing fee of `.57,800, under section 234E of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing as follows:– “I have considered the appellant's contention and find that

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condonation of delay and the reasons for the late filing of the appeal. No opportunity was provided to explain the delay adequately. The appellant reserves the right to add, delete, or modify any grounds during the course of the appeal.” 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the assessee has deposited cash