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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit of Advocate Smt. Shruti Joshi, for delay of about 35

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit of Advocate Smt. Shruti Joshi, for delay of about 35

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 in Form No.10AB. The said legal position further gets fortified by the fact that the CBDT on multiple occasions had extended the time limit in filing the application in Form No. 10A and / or From No. 10AB as under: (a) The CBDT vide Circular No.12 of 2021 dated 25/06/2021 in exercise of its power

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. 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

35 and also in our reply dated 13.12.2021. The condonation was not granted to us and the order has been passed without giving further opportunity of being heard. The reason for delay is due to application of interest waiver with Honourable CIT (Exemptions) and the health problems of the then President of the trust. Regarding the Appeal to be filed

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

35 and also in our reply dated 13.12.2021. The condonation was not granted to us and the order has been passed without giving further opportunity of being heard. The reason for delay is due to application of interest waiver with Honourable CIT (Exemptions) and the health problems of the then President of the trust. Regarding the Appeal to be filed

PAWAN SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

section 2(14) of the Act and the lands are situated within 8 kms of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed return of income for the A.Y. 2014–15 on 05/12/2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.2

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

section 2(14) of the Act and the lands are situated within 8 kms of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed return of income for the A.Y. 2014–15 on 05/12/2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.2

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

section 2(14) of the Act and the lands are situated within 8 kms of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed return of income for the A.Y. 2014–15 on 05/12/2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.2

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

section 2(14) of the Act and the lands are situated within 8 kms of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed return of income for the A.Y. 2014–15 on 05/12/2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.2

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4),NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

section 2(14) of the Act and the lands are situated within 8 kms of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed return of income for the A.Y. 2014–15 on 05/12/2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.2

DEESHA MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE

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

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

35 of the Act with a view to avoid genuine hardships to taxpayers.” Deesha Medical And Education Foundation ITA no.284/Nag./2024 3. In this case, the assessee filed The assessee has filed application No.CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE/2023- 24/12AA/12727 in Form no.10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Income

MAYUR KHARA,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

35 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur examined. As regards claim of bad debts and foreign exchange fluctuation the issue was duly examined by AO and we find nothing has been pointed out with regard to the allowability of the same or as to how the decision of the AO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit, as no mala fide intention can be ascribed to the assessee. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Company engaged in financial activities. The assessee, on 30/09/2013, filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total loss

KSHITIZ RAMPRASAD AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee had filed appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre. Subsequently the Hon'ble CIT(A) Communicated Hearing Notice u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 via an email which is not a registered or accessible mail account of the assessee. The notices towards fixing

ASHISH HARISH PARSHIONIKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(5), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryashish Harish Parshionikar, Ito, Ward-4(5), Nagpur. 214, Suyog Nagar, Manewada Vs. Road, Ring Road, Nagpur. Pan: Arbpp 1844 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144 and the CIT(A)'s dismissal without adjudicating the merits are contrary to law and evidence, as the cash deposits were from legitimate business receipts of my liquor and food retail business, duly supported by sale registers and bank statements. 6. Prejudice to the Appellant: If the delay is not condoned, I will suffer irreparable loss

RAJURA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,CHANDRAPUR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condone the delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a resident AOP (Association of Persons), engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and assessed to tax. For the assessment year 2016-17, the return of income was filed

POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA GONDIA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, GONDIA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

condoning the delay, accordingly we do so. 5. Before us, Shri Abhay Agrawal, Counsel appearing for the assessee invited our attention to the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) which is reproduced below for ready reference:– “5.2. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION: The appellant did not make any specific submission in this regard. However, he filed