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.

condonation of delay under section 119(2) of the IT Act and decide on merits.” 4. Then another circular was issued by the CBDT,Circular no. 16/2022 dated 19.07.2022, whereby thecondonation of delay u/s 190(2) (B) of the Act for filling of form 10B for A.Y. 2018-19 and subsequent years, that delay up to 365 days has been

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

SHRI PRAKASH YADAV,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Prakash Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Rampur, Boha, Akhar, V. Ward-2(4), Ballia-277401, Uttar Pradesh Ballia-277401, U.P. Pan:Agvpy3320Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not justified to dismiss the appeal by invoked the provision of section 249(4)(b) of the income tax Act through the appellant is a agriculturist and except the agricultural income having no any other source of income.Hence the agricultural income has exempt from the tax, hence the assessee

BANKA ATITHI BHAWAN TRUST,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Banka Atithibhawan Trust, Commissioner Of Income-Tax C/O Banka Atithibhawan, V. (Exemptions), Maya Bazar, Gorakhpur- 5Th Floor, Tc-46, Vibhutikhand, 273001, U.P. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, U.P. Pan:Aaatb8576G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Ashishbansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shriamalendunath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2023

1) ) refusing to condone delay in filing of Form No. 10B, for assessment year 2016- 17 . We have heard both the parties in Open Courtproceedings through physical hearing mode. Assessment Year: 2016-17 Banka AtithiBhawan Trust, Gorakhpur v. CIT(E), Lucknow 2. At the outset ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal is not maintainable with Income

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

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

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

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

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

b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC and submitted before it that the assessee had taken a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from Smt. Minakshi Diswania on 02.09.2011 and ITA No.50/VNS/2022 Page 3 of 8 that this amount received by cheque was deposited in her bank account and from

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

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

3. After hearing both the parties, we find that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals, therefore, the 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

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

3. After hearing both the parties, we find that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals, therefore, the 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

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

3. After hearing both the parties, we find that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals, therefore, the 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