NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Apropos the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others 1987 (2) TMI 61 (SC), the same being distinguishable on facts as against those involved in the captioned appeals before us, would thus not assist her case

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Apropos the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others 1987 (2) TMI 61 (SC), the same being distinguishable on facts as against those involved in the captioned appeals before us, would thus not assist her case

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Apropos the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others 1987 (2) TMI 61 (SC), the same being distinguishable on facts as against those involved in the captioned appeals before us, would thus not assist her case

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Apropos the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others 1987 (2) TMI 61 (SC), the same being distinguishable on facts as against those involved in the captioned appeals before us, would thus not assist her case

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Apropos the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others 1987 (2) TMI 61 (SC), the same being distinguishable on facts as against those involved in the captioned appeals before us, would thus not assist her case

MICKEY SHRIVASTVA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

20 to l6) in the case of Shyam Sunder Agrawal, considering abnormal delay in filing form no 36 and the non-cooperative attitudes and other factors declined to allow condone the delay and also to admit appeal of the assessee. 6. The application dated 31-05-2019, was not in accordance with procedure laid down by the Court. The assessee

CHHATTISGARH RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,RAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 16 & 17/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Chhattisgarh Rajya Open School Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Pension Road, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaagc0179F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Bhopal. ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 10(23C) of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone the delay. However, this Court is inclined to give appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application as an application for the subsequent assessment year, namely, 2013-2014 in accordance with law. Such direction is issued considering the peculiar

CHHATTISGARH RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,RAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 16 & 17/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Chhattisgarh Rajya Open School Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Pension Road, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaagc0179F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Bhopal. ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 10(23C) of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone the delay. However, this Court is inclined to give appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application as an application for the subsequent assessment year, namely, 2013-2014 in accordance with law. Such direction is issued considering the peculiar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

20. Per contra, Shri. Praveen Khandelwal, Chartered Accountant, the ld. Authorized Representative (for short “AR”) for the assessee company submitted that as there was an inordinate delay involved in filing the present appeal by the department, i.e. 3966 days, for which it had not come forth with any cogent explanation, therefore, the same being barred by limitation was liable

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

20% of the capital sum assured, the maturity proceeds receivable on such policy was not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10D) of the Act. Form 26AS issued reflected that TDS was deducted u/s 194DA which is applicable in the case where the maturity proceeds are not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10D). In view of the same, CPC included

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

20% of the capital sum assured, the maturity proceeds receivable on such policy was not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10D) of the Act. Form 26AS issued reflected that TDS was deducted u/s 194DA which is applicable in the case where the maturity proceeds are not eligible for exemption u/s 10(10D). In view of the same, CPC included

SANDEEP KAUR GILL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Kaur Gill 26/934, Shukla Colony, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adcpg7812K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 9. We may herein observe that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, had held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay

SANDEEP KAUR GILL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 267 & 268/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Kaur Gill 26/934, Shukla Colony, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adcpg7812K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 9. We may herein observe that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah 1972 AIR SC 749, had held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no motive behind the delay

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, KODEBOD,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal was inordinate, therefore, the same did not merit to be condoned. Elaborating further

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHENDRI ,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal was inordinate, therefore, the same did not merit to be condoned. Elaborating further

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, DONAR,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal was inordinate, therefore, the same did not merit to be condoned. Elaborating further

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, BHENDRI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal was inordinate, therefore, the same did not merit to be condoned. Elaborating further

GRAMIN SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, SANKARDAH,DHAMTARI vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) vehemently opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay of 493 days involved in filing of the appeal was inordinate, therefore, the same did not merit to be condoned. Elaborating further