ALHAMD EDUCATION & WELFARE TRUST,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO - WARD 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoning delay.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 250", "Section 143(1)", "Income-tax Act, 1961"], "issues": "Whether the appeal was rightly

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

delay of about four months in filing this appeal before this Tribunal is condoned. 4. Now coming to the merit of the case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust and filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 21/10/2016 in Form ITR-7 and claimed exemption under Section

KUMAR PRATIK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAHIBGANJ

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kumar Pratik, I.T.O., Tower C2, Flat 1402, Eden City, Sahibganj. Vs. Mahestala, Kolkata-700137. Pan No. Buapp 7990 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1 Disallowance under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. (Addition Rs. 3,08,005/- towards stamp duty and registration charges of Flat. This amount was received from sister, Kumari Sonali for payment of stamp duty and registration. She is my sister and received the amount as gift which is not taxable as received from relative. Kumari Sonali, Doner

DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), no proper and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee and the appeal of assessee was dismissed by passing ex parte order. The assessee, therefore, has prayed to give one more opportunity to substantiate its case and the issue may be restored back

DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), no proper and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee and the appeal of assessee was dismissed by passing ex parte order. The assessee, therefore, has prayed to give one more opportunity to substantiate its case and the issue may be restored back

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW,RANCHI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) National University Of Study & Assistant Director Of Research In Law, Ranchi, Income Tax, Vs. Nusrl Campus, Pithoria Road, P.O- C.P.C., Bangaluru. Burku At Nagri, Jharkhand. Pan No. Aaajn 0847 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condone the delay in filing of return due to genuine problem. 3. However, the institute received an intimation under sub-Section (1) of Section 143

INDIAN EDUCATION TRUST,DHANBAD vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEAL, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Indian Education Trust, Exemption Ward, Shishu Vihar, Bastacolla, Dhansar, Dhanbad. Vs. Dhanbad, Jharkhand. Pan No. Aaati 4414 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal under Section 250 without adjudicating the issues on merit, despite condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 2. That the order passed under Section 250 is perverse, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice as adequate opportunities were not provided

ANKITA AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.499/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ankita Agarwal………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Near Kali Mandir, Harharguttu, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831002. [Pan: Atkpa9502A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..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 28.06.2024 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 125 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

condone the delay in filing the appeal and 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 and 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

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

1. For that the learned officers below have erred in making addition of the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- especially in view of the fact that there was no agreement to make any payment under Section 194C and therefore provision of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in this case. Even if the appellant was liable to deduct

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHI,RANCHI vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Rajendra Kumar Sahi………….……………............................……….……Appellant Hulhundu, Hatia, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834003. [Pan: Agkps0098L] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Jharkhand….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..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 : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 07.08.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹4,96,520. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny As The Assessee Had Disclosed Comparatively Low Income Against Receipts On Which Tcs Had Been Deducted. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted A Possibility That The Assessee Had Shown Low Income In Order To Reduce Taxable Profits. It Was Also Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Significantly Higher Tds In The Revised Itr. Therefore, The Ao Intended To Verify The Genuineness Of The Additional Tds Claim & Whether The Corresponding Receipts Had Been Offered To Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act Were Issued To The Assessee. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices. Consequently, The Ao

sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee did not comply with the notices. Consequently, the AO I.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Rajendra Kumar Sahi completed the assessment ex parte and determined the total income at ₹32,28,841. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was delayed