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

condone the delay and pass a speaking order while adjudicating the issues 7 Astavinayak Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit ITA no.158/Nag./2025 raised by the assessee on merits under section

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

7. The facts of the present case are different from facts in the case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghnani, [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98. Considering the reasons stated for delay and facts of the case, the appellant has failed to furnish plausible explanation for the delay and, therefore, the delay in filing

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

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

7 SCC 123, the Court made the following observations: "It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section

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

section 272A(2)(e) of the IT Act, 1961 by filing Return of Income late by 2307 days from the due date of filing of return without any reasonable cause, for the Α.Υ. 2009-10. 6. Therefore, I hereby levy a penalty of Rs. 230700/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Only

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

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 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

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

7. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee and argued that the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable before the learned CIT(A) due to abnormal delay of 405 days. The assessee failed to furnish sufficient cause for the substantial delay of more than a year and, therefore

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

7. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee and argued that the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable before the learned CIT(A) due to abnormal delay of 405 days. The assessee failed to furnish sufficient cause for the substantial delay of more than a year and, therefore

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

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

7. From the provisions of clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, it is evident that the time limits prescribed therein are mandatory and the Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to condone the delay

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

section 69A of the Act which was added to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by concluding that the condonation of delay is not allowed as the assessee has a lackadaisical approach and in a nonchalant manner the assessee is attempting to seek condonation of delay and, hence

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 69A of the Act which was added to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by concluding that the condonation of delay is not allowed as the assessee has a lackadaisical approach and in a nonchalant manner the assessee is attempting to seek condonation of delay and, hence

ANANT RAMRAO CHAVAN,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

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

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

delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing. 7. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section

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

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

7. The Assessee filed copies of following case laws, but were not referred to during the hearing.  DDIT (International tax) Vs. Serum Institute of India(2015) 40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India