RAMESH CHANDRA JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (5), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. In this case, assessment order dated 26.12.2016 was passed u/s. 143(3)/148 of the Act, whereby the assessee’s total income was determined for Rs. 7,59,215/- (rounded off to 7,59,220/-) as against income of Rs.4,38,020/- returned

LATE NAND JEE UPADHYAY L/H SHRI DUSHYANT UPADHYAY,VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2019-20 Late Nand Jee Upadhyay Vs Addl. Director Of Income-Tax, (Through His L/H Sri Dushyant Central Processing Centre, Upadhyay) Bengaluri. Flat No.102, Surya Mension, Ravindrapuri, Varanasi – 221 005. Pan: Aabpu0287G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 13.08.2021 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Is Barred By Limitation By 329 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Seeking Condonation Of The Delay On The Ground That The Assessee Was Attending Certain Domestic Problems Relating To Matrimonial Issues In The Family & Subsequently, The Assessee Also Died. Hence The Assessee Could Not File The Appeal In Time. Subsequently, The Legal Heir Of The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal With A Delay On Noticing Outstanding Demand.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 4. The only issue urged in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs.55.75 lakhs made u/s 36(1)(va) for non-payment of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESI within the due dates prescribed under the respective Statutes. 5. We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay citing the reasons for the delay in filing before the Delhi benches, if so advised. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2023. (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 26th September, 2023. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that after the judgement

RADHEY SHYAM,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shriradheyshyam Income Tax Officer, 308, Sector 16, Avasvikas Colony V. Ward-2(3),Aayakarbhawan, Sikandra,Agra-282007, U.P.. Maqboolalam Road Pan:Aikps7948H Varanasi-221002,U.P.. (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay of 2 days in filing this appeal belatedly by the assesseeis condoned, and weproceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits. 3. The assessee is an individual, and he has claimed that his source of income is pension and interest income and ,since income was below threshold taxable limits , he did not filed return of income with Revenue for assessment

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, ,CHANDAULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, TDS - 1, VARANASI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing. 4. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that the assessee, who is a Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli, was engaged by the Governor of U.P. for looking after the construction of CHC Building at Chandauli. As per the MoU, he was a Clearing

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,CHANDAULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS - 1, VARANASI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing. 4. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that the assessee, who is a Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli, was engaged by the Governor of U.P. for looking after the construction of CHC Building at Chandauli. As per the MoU, he was a Clearing

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,CHANDAULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS - 1, VARANASI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing. 4. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that the assessee, who is a Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli, was engaged by the Governor of U.P. for looking after the construction of CHC Building at Chandauli. As per the MoU, he was a Clearing

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

GOPI KRISHNA VINOD KUMAR HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

VINOD KUMAR SARAF HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

SARVESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long