M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital expenses to be able to sustain and continue in long run. The petitioner has to be substantially self-sustaining in long-term and should not depend upon government, in other words taxpayers should not subsidize the said activities, which nevertheless are charitable and fall under the residuary clause ―general public utilityǁ. The impugned order does not refer

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital expenses to be able to sustain and continue in long run. The petitioner has to be substantially self-sustaining in long-term and should not depend upon government, in other words taxpayers should not subsidize the said activities, which nevertheless are charitable and fall under the residuary clause ―general public utilityǁ. The impugned order does not refer

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital expenses to be able to sustain and continue in long run. The petitioner has to be substantially self-sustaining in long-term and should not depend upon government, in other words taxpayers should not subsidize the said activities, which nevertheless are charitable and fall under the residuary clause ―general public utilityǁ. The impugned order does not refer

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal\nafter expiry of prescribed time, subject of course that the ITAT is satisfied\nthat there was “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed\ntime.\n\n15.\nFurther, in the landmark decision of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs\nMst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

capital gains were clearly available before the\nAssessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings and that the\nRevenue had not brought any material before it, which was not disclosed by\nthe assessee in the original return of income. Thus, the Tribunal concluded\nthat there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material\nfact relevant

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

253 may appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has power to pass such orders on such an appeal as it thinks fit. Sub section (4) of section 254 attaches finality to, the orders of the Tribunal subject to the provisions of section 256 ( or section 260A). Needless to say the orders passed by the Tribunal are binding

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "253", "143(2)", "142(1)", "80C", "80D", "50C(1)", "250(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without discussing merits. Whether the lands sold were agricultural or non-agricultural. Whether the capital gains

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

2) of section 253, after the expiration of the period of-- (i) two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which the action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or (ii) six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2) of section 253, after the expiration of the period of-- (i) two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which the action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or (ii) six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2) of section 253, after the expiration of the period of-- (i) two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which the action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or (ii) six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain of rs. 18594875 as against computed by\nthe assessee and accepted in original assessment at rs. nil.\n5. That Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the provisions of first\nproviso to section 50c of the act properly and also without considering\nthe supporting documents submitted by assessee in support of\napplication of first proviso to section

TEJU PARVAT,SANVER vs. ITO-1(1), INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

gain on account of sale of\nagricultural lands was without appreciation of the facts of the\ncase as the sale deeds submitted by assessee clearly convey that\nboth the lands sold by the assessee are agricultural lands\nsituated in rural area and hence not a capital asset.\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

253/- shown in the audited financial statement and has also not disputed that the assessee society is carrying out charitable activity by way of giving medical relief to poor and also imparting education through Index Medical College and the assessee is regularly carrying out Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 the activities for which it was granted registration u/s 12AA

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

253/- shown in the audited financial statement and has also not disputed that the assessee society is carrying out charitable activity by way of giving medical relief to poor and also imparting education through Index Medical College and the assessee is regularly carrying out Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 the activities for which it was granted registration u/s 12AA

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice\nand technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of\nsubstantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach.\nPage 7 of 25\nVijay Kothari\nITA No.267/Ind/2024\nΑ.Υ.:2015-16\nThus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5)\nand the decision

SAQUIB AHMED,PIPARIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2) and 142(1)\nwere issued from time to time. The assessee made a detailed\nsubmission along with the documentary evidences regarding\nsalary income, capital gain calculation deductions under chapter\nVI-A, etc. The Ld. AO in the aforesaid assessment order held\nthat:-\n//\nIn view of the submission made by the assessee and after\nconsidering the totality of facts

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this Tribunal as & by way of second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:- ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074463840(1) dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after Page

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDA DEVI TAPARIA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

Section 253 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for\nsake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by\nthe order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-\n25/1073834816(1) dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)\nu/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the\n“Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year