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

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

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

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

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

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

1)(c). Jitendra Kr. Agarwal Vs DCIT 5. That the assessee craves lave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing." 2. We find from perusal of record that there is delay of one day in filing of this appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed

SACHIN PODDAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

1)(c). Sachin Poddar Vs DCIT 5. That the assessee craves lave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing." 2. We find from perusal of record that there is delay of one day in filing of this appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed

CRYSTAL THERMOTECH 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 George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

1)(c). 5. That the assessee craves lave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing." Crystal Thermotech P ltd. Vs DCIT 2. We find from perusal of record that there is delay of one day in filing of this appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed

CRYSTAL THERMOTECH PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

1)(c). 5. That the assessee craves lave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing." Crystal Thermotech P ltd. Vs DCIT 2. We find from perusal of record that there is delay of one day in filing of this appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed

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

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

Delay condoned. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is , accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 9. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we cancel the penalty levied of Rs. 11,24,721/- by the AO U/Sec.271(1)( c) of the Act and confirmed by the CIT-A. Accordingly, the grounds