STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

124, (SC) there was a delay of 883 days in filing of application in setting aside the ex-parte decree for which application for condonation of delay was filed. The trial Court having found that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay condoned the delay. The Hon`ble Supreme Court while restoring the order of the trial Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

124, (SC) there was a delay of 883 days in filing of application in setting aside the ex-parte decree for which application for condonation of delay was filed. The trial Court having found that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay condoned the delay. The Hon`ble Supreme Court while restoring the order of the trial Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

124, (SC) there was a delay of 883 days in filing of application in setting aside the ex-parte decree for which application for condonation of delay was filed. The trial Court having found that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay condoned the delay. The Hon`ble Supreme Court while restoring the order of the trial Court

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(1) r.w..s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 30.03.2016, 31.03.2016, 30.03.2017 & 14.03.2017 respectively. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(1) r.w..s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 30.03.2016, 31.03.2016, 30.03.2017 & 14.03.2017 respectively. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(1) r.w..s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 30.03.2016, 31.03.2016, 30.03.2017 & 14.03.2017 respectively. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(1) r.w..s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 30.03.2016, 31.03.2016, 30.03.2017 & 14.03.2017 respectively. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake

KATARGAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SHEDHOLDERS,SURAT vs. CIT(E), AHMEDABAD

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

124(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, may please be set aside to the file\nof the CIT(Exemption) with appropriate direction.\n5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as\nlearned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.\n6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either

SHREE SIDDHIVINAYK CHARITABLE TRUST JIYAV,SURAT vs. CIT(E), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

124(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, may please be set aside to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with appropriate direction. 5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either