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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17, emanating against the assessment order dated 18/12/2018, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Circle Amravati. 2. During the course of hearing, we find that there is a delay

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

section 143(1) by the Central Processing Centre on 27/03/2019. 2. During the course of hearing, we find that there is a delay of 203 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application–cum–affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the cause of Gurpalsingh Chanansingh Nagra ITA no.206/Mum./2023 delay in filing the present

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

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

section 271C of the Act respectively. A. Preliminary Issue - Condonation of Delay 2. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both these appeals could not be filed in time and the said appeals are filed with the delay of 979 days. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit along with condonation

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.

250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi

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.

250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi

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

4) Even though the section 115BBC is not applicable to the Appellant as per clause 1 above, there is addition of anonymous donations under section 115BBC. The calculation of amount is also not proper. It is based on only part donation received and not total donations received. As per section 115BBC (1) the amount brought to tax is the aggregate

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

4) Even though the section 115BBC is not applicable to the Appellant as per clause 1 above, there is addition of anonymous donations under section 115BBC. The calculation of amount is also not proper. It is based on only part donation received and not total donations received. As per section 115BBC (1) the amount brought to tax is the aggregate

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

4. After considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and averments made in the Affidavit, I am of the opinion that the assessee is prevented in filing the appeal belatedly and I am satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, I condone the delay of 52 days in filing the present appeal

PANHERA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BULDHANA vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

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

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

section 250 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. That, the order under appeal is served on the Assessee on 14/06/2024 because of which the appeal was to be filed on or before the 13/08/2024. However, the appellant E-filed Form No. 36 on 24/08/2024 and uploaded the signed documents on 25/09/2024, hence there is a delay

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

4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have 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

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

4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have 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

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order on 25 March 2023 whereas the due date for furnishing the response against the first

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

section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order on 25 March 2023 whereas the due date for furnishing the response against the first

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order on 25 March 2023 whereas the due date for furnishing the response against the first

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order on 25 March 2023 whereas the due date for furnishing the response against the first

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order on 25 March 2023 whereas the due date for furnishing the response against the first

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

section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order on 25 March 2023 whereas the due date for furnishing the response against the first

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order on 25 March 2023 whereas the due date for furnishing the response against the first