ABHISHEK SEWA SANSTHA,CHANDAULI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Us That Relevant Fact & Correct Position Of Law Has Not Been Considered By Ld. Pcit, Therefore Same Are Discussed In Brief.

12 of the Act. However,CBDT vide by Circular No. 2/2020 dated 03.01.2020has given certain relaxation in filling of Form 10B for the A.Y. 2016-17 and A.Y. 2017-18 and also for the years prior to A.Y. 2018-19, whereby the Commissioners of Income Taxwere givenauthority and poweru/s 119(2) to condone the delay in filing Form

RISHIKESH SHUKLA,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, WARD - III (1), MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Rishikesh Shukla, Income Tax Officer, S/O Shri K. P. Shukla, V. Ward-Iii(1), Sharma Colony, Mirzapur,U.P.. Waidhan,Singrauli-486886, Madhya Pradesh . Pan:Bcmps8094M (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing this appeal late by the assessee beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act, and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merit in accordance with law. 4. The brief facts of the case are that as per the database of the Department, the assessee has deposited cash in his savings bank account

GUNJAN RUNGTA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

12,500/-, totaling to Rs.32,63,500/- was treated as undisclosed investment under section 69 of the Act. Since the property was jointly purchased by the assessee with Ms. Namrata Devi, 50% of the investment, i.e. Rs.16,31,750/-, was treated as undisclosed investment by the assessee and was added to the total income of the assessee under section

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

12-01-2009 15-01-2009 15- 01-2009 19-01-2009 19-01-2009 with Amount of Actual Redemption 20000.00 20000.00 17750.00 17750.00 17750.00 17750.00 20000.00 20000.00 respectively. As per post office rule at the time of maturity of investment all the original documents such as passbook, Investment certificate and other related documents had been retained by post office

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 127 for the same assessment year(s). 34. We will now deal with the decisions of certain High Court which have taken a view that the jurisdiction of the High Court must be based on the location of the ITAT. These judgments are CIT v. Parke Davis (India) Ltd.23, CIT v. A.B.C. India Ltd.24, CIT v. J.L. Marrison (India

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 02 (04),, BALLIA vs. PREM SHANKAR VERMA,, BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2017-18 The Income Tax Officer V. Shri Prem Shankar Verma Ward – 02(04) Sripur. Takarsan Ballia Ballia Tan/Pan:Adopv7563Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.03/Vns/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No.134/Vns/134] Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Prem Shankar Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Sripur. Takarsan Ward – 02(04) Ballia Ballia Tan/Pan:Adopv7563Q (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed cross objection in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). :-2-: 2. There is a delay of 14 days in filing of the cross objection. As per the application for condonation of delay, supported by the Medical Certificate of Dr. J. P. Shukla of Sharda

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

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

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

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

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

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)

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an application explaining reasons for delay in filing this appeal late beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) , in which assessee has claimed that the assessee had sent the appeal, by Speed Post on 19th October, 2022 , while I.T.A. No.42/VNS/2022 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 RadheyShyam,Agra

SINGHAL AGENCIES,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4), AZAMGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 270A for the year under consideration. Later, when the partner of the assessee firm was stabilized, he has rejoined the activities of the firm in the month of July, 2022, then he realized about non-filing of the appeal against the appellate order dated 25.11.2021. Soon thereafter, he contacted our chartered accountant for this purpose and handed over