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)

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 has failed to file affidavit and also failed to furnish evidences in support of the reasons given

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

condoned the delay involved in present case. 10. At the threshold of the hearing, Ld. AR pressed following additional grounds: Additional Ground No. 1 dated 04.04.2024 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s 144 by Addl. CIT is invalid as he was not having valid jurisdiction over the assessee firm for making assessment

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

vii). State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others (1996) 3 SCC 132: (viii). State of U.P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others, (1996) 9 SCC . 309 (ix). National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Giga Ram and others, (2002) 10 SCC . . 176. 22 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (x). State of Nagaland v. Lipok

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BIJAPUR,BIJAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay