ARHAM ENTERPRISE,DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE ITO(TDS), WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and may please be admitted and y be condoned and may please be admitted and decided on merits by exercising the powers conferred in the ITAT vide provisions of decided on merits by exercising the powers conferred in the ITAT vide provisions of decided on merits by exercising the powers conferred

ARHAM ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. ITO, TDS-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, all these appeal appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinhashri Diesh Mohan Sinha

delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and may please be admitted and y be condoned and may please be admitted and decided on merits by exercising the powers conferred in the ITAT vide provisions of decided on merits by exercising the powers conferred in the ITAT vide provisions of decided on merits by exercising the powers conferred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORBI vs. MAHENDRAKUMAR BHAGVANDAS RANPURA, MORBI

delay is condoned in filing the cross objection.\n8. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an\nIndividual. The assessee has filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.)\n2017-18, on 31/01/2018, declaring therein total income of Rs. Nil/-. The return\nof income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later

SANJAYKUMAR DHIRUBHAI HIRPARA,KHAMBHA vs. AO, ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), RAJKOT

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapura Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 I.T.A No. 260/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Sanjaykumar dhirubhai Hirapara Vs. AO., ITO (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. 2. The Registry has noticed that there is a delay of two days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained that