SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI ,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXTEMPTION) , BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the CIT (Exemption) Bhopal Act. Ld. CIT(E) found that provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act was granted to the assessee on 15.01.2022 for AY 2022-23 to 2024-25. Assessee was required to apply in form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act within six months from

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the CIT (Exemption) Bhopal Act. Ld. CIT(E) found that provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act was granted to the assessee on 15.01.2022 for AY 2022-23 to 2024-25. Assessee was required to apply in form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act within six months from

SHRI ACHLESHWAR MAHADEVJI JI SARVJANIK NIYAS,GWALIOR vs. CIT(E), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2025-26 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji V Cit (Exemption) Sarvajanik Nyas, Sanatan Bhopal Dharm Mandir Road Gwalior- 474 001 Pan : Aahts1225J (Appellant) (Respondent)

3 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji Sarvajanik Nyas v CIT (Exemption)Bhopal However, after this Circular No. 8 of 2022, the CBDT has issued another Circular No. 6 of 2023, dt. 24th May, 2023 wherein in para 5, the CBDT has instructed as follows: 5. In order to mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in the exercise

AASTITVA JAIN FAMILY TRUST,ASHOKNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16

condonation application considering reason of delay as not bonafide. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not providing appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant for explaining the reason for delay in filing of appeal and dismissed the appeal which is against of law and principle of natural

KAVITA RALHAN,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (2), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3. It next emerges with the able assistance coming from both parties that the assessee’s instant four cases involve section 144, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F proceedings, as the case may be, involve identical issue of condonation of delay

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

delay of ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd 3 days. The bonafide intention of the assessee to settle the disputes by paying due taxes thereon cannot be doubted in the instant case. Substantive provision of not preferring any further appeal and by paying due taxes had been complied with by the Assessee Company. The filing of Form

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

delay of ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd 3 days. The bonafide intention of the assessee to settle the disputes by paying due taxes thereon cannot be doubted in the instant case. Substantive provision of not preferring any further appeal and by paying due taxes had been complied with by the Assessee Company. The filing of Form

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

delay of ITA Nos. 06, 07 & 08/AGR/2023 Vectus Industries Ltd 3 days. The bonafide intention of the assessee to settle the disputes by paying due taxes thereon cannot be doubted in the instant case. Substantive provision of not preferring any further appeal and by paying due taxes had been complied with by the Assessee Company. The filing of Form

BHARTIYA SADBHAWNA MANCH,JHANSI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 266/Agr/2025 and 267/Agr/2025 are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

B) of section 80G(5) of the Act were rejected. ITA No.266 & 267/Agr/2025 2. At the very outset, it has been brought to the notice of the Bench that both these appeals were filed on 08.05.2025 against the impugned orders dated 29.11.2024 and 30.12.2024 by a delay of about 94 days and 66 days respectively. Assessee has submitted through

BHARTIYA SADBHAWNA MANCH,JHANSI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 266/Agr/2025 and 267/Agr/2025 are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

B) of section 80G(5) of the Act were rejected. ITA No.266 & 267/Agr/2025 2. At the very outset, it has been brought to the notice of the Bench that both these appeals were filed on 08.05.2025 against the impugned orders dated 29.11.2024 and 30.12.2024 by a delay of about 94 days and 66 days respectively. Assessee has submitted through

ITO WARD-1(1)(2), AGRA vs. MAMTA SINGH, AGRA

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Mamta Singh, Ward-1(1)(2), Agra 6, Amar Lok Colony, Opposite Jalma Hospital, Agra. (Appellant) Pan :Aobps 7284 K (Respondent)

condoned the delay and admitted the C.O. for hearing. The Learned A.R. was directed to proceed with his arguments. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT [Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the entire impugned additions on technical grounds, and not on merits, without appreciating complete facts

FIROZABAD SHIKOHABAD,FIROZABAD vs. C.I.T.-II, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

3 7. That as stated above the delay in filing of the appeal is due to fault in the office of the deponent who is the Tax Consultant of the appellant.” 4. No valid objection was taken by the Ld. DR. We are satisfied by the reasons of delay. The delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted

LAXMI FOUNDATION,FIROZABAD vs. ITO EXEMPTION AGRA (CPC) , AGRA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

3. It transpires at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s claim of section 11 exemption; in the course of section 143(1) processing dated 20.03.2020 as upheld in the impugned lower appellate discussion reading as follows : “5. Decision: After carefully going through the facts of the case, intimation order under section 143(1

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

In the result, both the revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

1, Morena 2. The facts and issue involved in both these appeals are almost similar, hence, for the sake of brevity and convenience, these appeals are being decided by this common order. 3. Perused records and heard Ld. representatives for both the parties. 4. At the very outset, it is noticed that this first appeal was dismissed upon rejection

M/S AMBAH CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,MORENA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MORENA

In the result, both the revenue appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

1, Morena 2. The facts and issue involved in both these appeals are almost similar, hence, for the sake of brevity and convenience, these appeals are being decided by this common order. 3. Perused records and heard Ld. representatives for both the parties. 4. At the very outset, it is noticed that this first appeal was dismissed upon rejection

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WALFARE SANSTHAN ,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

3) That the assessee filed its return of income in time and 108 was also filed in time as the que date of filing ITR was 31.10.2018 vis a vis filing date 14. 10.2018 and 10B was 15.10.2018 vis a vis filing date 13. 102018. G 4) That while processing the return CPC did not allow exemption

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD,4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

3) That the assessee filed its return of income in time and 108 was also filed in time as the que date of filing ITR was 31.10.2018 vis a vis filing date 14. 10.2018 and 10B was 15.10.2018 vis a vis filing date 13. 102018. G 4) That while processing the return CPC did not allow exemption

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO, WARD, 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

3) That the assessee filed its return of income in time and 108 was also filed in time as the que date of filing ITR was 31.10.2018 vis a vis filing date 14. 10.2018 and 10B was 15.10.2018 vis a vis filing date 13. 102018. G 4) That while processing the return CPC did not allow exemption