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

3. In ground No.1, the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the prayer of the assessee for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Branch of Bank of India, Nagpur Circle. The branches of Bank of India, Nagpur Circle received orders under

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

3. In ground No.1, the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the prayer of the assessee for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Branch of Bank of India, Nagpur Circle. The branches of Bank of India, Nagpur Circle received orders under

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

condonation of delay and consider our appeal." 4.1 I have considered the explanation furnished by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal. The sub-section (3

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [“learned CIT”], for the assessment year 2013-14. Sunilkumar Rajendra Rai vs TDS Ward, Nagpur ITA no.286/Nag./2023 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:– 2. “ Grounds of Appeal Tax Effect 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay

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

condoned, as no sufficient cause was shown under section 249(3) of the Act for the failure to file the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation as contained under section 249(2) of the Act r/w section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, as 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

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

3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act'). The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this slage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should

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.

3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should

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.

3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should

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

3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal which was delayed by 25 days. The grounds raised by the assessee for condonation of delay are as under:- “(i) DUE TO UNAWARENESS OF THE LOCAL MANAGER AND STAFF THERE, THE NOTICES WERE LATE SUBMITTED TO THE TRUSTEE.” 4. The learned CIT(A) held that there was no reasonable cause

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

condoned, as no sufficient cause was shown under section 249(3) of the Act for the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as contained under section 249(2) of the Act r/w section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, as delay

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

condoned, as no sufficient cause was shown under section 249(3) of the Act for the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as contained under section 249(2) of the Act r/w section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, as delay

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

3 Shri Vyankanath Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha Murtizapur ITA no.398/Nag./2024 i) (1998) 7 SCC 123 N. Balkrishnan vs. Krishna Murthy ii) AIR 2002 SC 1201 Ram Nath vs. Gobardhan Sao 5. Assessee places reliance on decision of ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. wherein delay of 2054 days was condoned in order dated 21/01/2020

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

3 Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal ITA no.110/Nag./2023 valuable right of appeal. In view of above, it is humbly submitted that liberal view be taken and application be allowed and delay be condoned in the interest of justice.” 4. In support of the averments made in the application for condonation, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the following case

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

condone the delay in filing application for registration u/s 80G? 6. Appellant pray to kind allow to add, amend, modify alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. The order passed by the CIT (Exemption) Pune on the application filed by the assessee, reads as under

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals (Ms

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

delay in filing of appeals it can be condoned on the ground that it involves a question of law which goes into the root of the matter. In these set of appeals before us, it pertains to a legal question whether late fees would be leviable on the assessee or not depending upon the merits involved in each case

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

3. The only issue raised in these appeals is against the confirmation of the orders passed by the AOs u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Act treating the assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194A on interest paid/credited to its customers and also non-condonation of delay by the ld. CIT(A) in presenting

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

3. The only issue raised in these appeals is against the confirmation of the orders passed by the AOs u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Act treating the assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194A on interest paid/credited to its customers and also non-condonation of delay by the ld. CIT(A) in presenting