HOLYFAITH TRIBAL W AND D TRUST ,RANCHI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, I.T.O., 406, Midland East Apartment, 406, Midland East Apartment, Exemption Ward, Exemption Ward, Vs. Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) 834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaath 5200 R Aaath 5200 R Appellant/ Assessee Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Respondent/ Revenue

Section 13(1) and 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is disallowed. The notices U/s 133(6) were

M/S RAM SWARUP RUNGTA & BROTHERS,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

M/S. JUNIOR CHAMBER INTERNATIONAL,,RANCHI vs. ITO , EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

condone the delay in filing appeal and admit the same for hearing and adjudication. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant society is an association of young entrepreneurs and it is a society registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The case of appellant was selected for limited

PAWAN KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), RANCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.487/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pawan Kumar….………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant A/3, Manorama Enclave, Argora, Pundag Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834012. [Pan: Agypk0863F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 03.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

2. At the outset, the Registry has informed that there is a delay of 15 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating reasons for such delay. After considering the application, we find reasonable cause and that the delay was not intentional. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 274 of the Act, is exactly similar, following this Bench’s decision in the case of Raj Kumar Agrawal(supra),we, Gajanan Ferro P Ltd. Vs DCIT therefore, set aside the penalty order and direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee. 12. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 13

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 274 of the Act, is exactly similar, following this Bench’s decision in the case of Raj Kumar Agrawal(supra),we, Gajanan Ferro P Ltd. Vs DCIT therefore, set aside the penalty order and direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee. 12. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 13

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 274 of the Act, is exactly similar, following this Bench’s decision in the case of Raj Kumar Agrawal(supra),we, Gajanan Ferro P Ltd. Vs DCIT therefore, set aside the penalty order and direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee. 12. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 13

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2. At the outset, I find that as per the office note, there is a delay of 91 days in filing both the appeals under considerations. Ld. AR has filed a petition stating sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing both the appeals for the above period, which is on record. Considering the reasons stated in the petition filed

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2. At the outset, I find that as per the office note, there is a delay of 91 days in filing both the appeals under considerations. Ld. AR has filed a petition stating sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing both the appeals for the above period, which is on record. Considering the reasons stated in the petition filed

NITU SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 274 of the Act, is exactly similar, following this Bench’s decision in the case of Raj Kumar Agrawal(supra),we, therefore, set aside the penalty order and direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee. 12. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 13. Now we shall take ITA No.82/Ran/2022

RINKU SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 274 of the Act, is exactly similar, following this Bench’s decision in the case of Raj Kumar Agrawal(supra),we, therefore, set aside the penalty order and direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee. 12. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 13. Now we shall take ITA No.82/Ran/2022

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2. At the outset, we find that both appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation. Ld. AR has filed a petition in both the appeals stating sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing both the appeals, which is on record. Considering the reasons stated in the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay to which

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2. At the outset, we find that both appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation. Ld. AR has filed a petition in both the appeals stating sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing both the appeals, which is on record. Considering the reasons stated in the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay to which