ALOK KUMAR,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

2. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008(228) ELT 162. While condoning the delay of 883 days intiling an application for setting aside the ex parte decree held "That the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span tor the legal remedy

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

2. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008(228) ELT 162. While condoning the delay of 883 days intiling an application for setting aside the ex parte decree held "That the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span tor the legal remedy

ALOK KUMAR,KANKE ROAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE TWO

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

2. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008(228) ELT 162. While condoning the delay of 883 days intiling an application for setting aside the ex parte decree held "That the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span tor the legal remedy

M/S EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited unlisted company, engaged in the real estate business. Survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was conducted in the case of assessee

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

delay of 173 days in filing both these appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the CPC, Bangalore while processing the return under Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) has not been allowed deduction under Section 80IB

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

delay of 173 days in filing both these appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the CPC, Bangalore while processing the return under Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) has not been allowed deduction under Section 80IB

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

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushalya (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains the principle of natural justice

JAMSHEDPUR MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION,JAMSHEDPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jamshedpur Management Association, C.I.T.(Exemption), 18, Centre For Excellence, Ch Area Patna Vs. (East), Jamshedpur-831001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaeaj 2108 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is a society and filed an application in Form 10AB before the ld. CIT(E), Patna on 20/10/2022 for grant of regular registration under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A read with section

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer, on the basis of AIR/CIB(NMS Data) information found that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 despite the fact that he has carried out financial transactions in immovable property

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

condonation of delay was not acceded by the department. 4. The appellant then filed a rectification application against the above demand notice, however, the same was rejected by the department. The appellant institute, therefore, filed another rectification application, however, the department bearing DIN No. CPC/1920/U7/2013753186 dated 04/02/2021 disallowed both the revenue expenditure as well as the capital expenditure claimed

RAJARAM AGRAWAL,CHAKRADHARPUR vs. ITO, CHAIBASA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.92/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Rajaram Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Chaibasa Ward No.7, Kali Mandir, Chakradharpur, West Singhbhum, Chakradharpur, Jharkhand स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aejpa 5952 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Kolkata, Dated 23.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016- 2017. 2. Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, Ld.Ar Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 314 Days. It Was The Prayer That The Delay May Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Adjudicated. 4. I Have Perused The Records. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee On For Condonation Of Delay Reads As Follow:-

2 3 5. The appellate the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed on 23.03.2024. The assessee has attached certain medical certificates. The reasons being given is that there is medical emergency and, therefore, I was there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, I condone the delay and the appeal of the assessee is admitted

SUMBUL ALAM,RANCHI vs. ASSISTANT COOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

2. We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 266 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee mentioning the fact that for the income tax compliances, the appellant's had appointed her Authorised Representative but her Authorised Representative has failed

SUMBUL ALAM,RANCHI vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

2. We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 266 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee mentioning the fact that for the income tax compliances, the appellant's had appointed her Authorised Representative but her Authorised Representative has failed

BABY CHATTERJEE,RANCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Baby Chatterjee, I.T.O., 2A/2B, Krishna Enclave, North Office Ward 1(3), Vs. Para, Doranda, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Anppc 8818 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

delay of about one month in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had declared income under the head 'income from salary and income from other sources (interest)' for the assessment year under consideration and declared total income at ₹ 4,16,400/- . The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS

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

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