CHINMASTIKA SIDHARTHA(JV),PATNA vs. CIT(A), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from contract work. The appellant-assessee is a joint venture of Chinamastika Construction and Developers Pvt. Limited (mentioned as 1st party) and Siddharth Construction & Trading Pvt. Ltd. (mentioned as 2nd party) The assessee filed its return of income on 19.01.2016 showing total income

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. P a g e 1 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal” “1. For that the CIT(A) has erred in affirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s.143(3)/147 wherein the Assessing Officer has assessed

SHASHI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL AVAM WELFARE SOCIETY,PATNA vs. AO, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

119(2)(b) of the Act. In the present case, there is no evidence on record that the appellant filed any such condonation petition before the Commissioner. CPC was therefore justified in disallowing the exemption u/s 11 as claimed in return. This authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing Form 10B. 5.3 As regard appellant's appeal