GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWER vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone the delay.\n(iv) Delay cannot be condoned on 'fanciful stories'.\n(v) 'Merit of case

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

condonation of delay and coupled with other circumstances and factors for applying liberal principles and then said delay

RADHA MAHESHWARI,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradha Maheshwari Ito 4 Bahadurganj, Khidwdkar Dewas Marg Behind Civi Hospital Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azcpm1050B Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .07.2024

condonation of delay. in the absence of application for condonation of delay, the delay cannot

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.” [Emphasis supplied] 6. The grossly

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.” [Emphasis supplied] 6. The grossly

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

delay is genuinely explained in the affidavit/application. He prayed to condone the delay in the situation for the cause

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone delay in every case. Courts must examine\nwhether the delay was due to reasons beyond the assessee

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

condonation of delay in para 9 to 17 as under: “9. Condonation of delay - The condonation

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

condonation of delay in para 9 to 17 as under: “9. Condonation of delay - The condonation

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO , BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

delay should be condoned. An application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in support

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

delay should be condoned. An application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in support

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. PCIT (1), INDORE

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

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid

M P RAJYA POWERLOOM BUNKAR SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT,BURHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp Rajya Powerloom Bunkar Income Tax Officer Sakahari Sangh Maryadit Burhanpur Vs. Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5938R Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

delay in filing the return of income. He has further submitted that this grievance was raised before the CBDT and vide circular no.13 of 2023 dated 26.07.2023 the CBDT has directed the CCsIT/DGsIT to deal with the applications for condonation

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condoning the delay. The delay\ncannot be condoned merely because the assessee's case calls for\nsympathy

GORELAL PARMAR,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Gorelal Parmar, Ito 2(5), 8, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Arvind Vihar, Vs. Baghugliya, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkxpp3183R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay the CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone delays. Ld. DR for revenue, being fair enough,\ndoes not have any objection if the bench condones

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone delays. Ld. DR for revenue, being fair enough,\ndoes not have any objection if the bench condones

AMIT VYAS,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN , UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

condoning the delay. However, the reason provided by the appellant is not sufficient to condone the delay