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

Appeal is dismissed

11 of 22\nC.I. Finlease Private Limited\nITA No. 396/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13\nb) Hon. High Court, Bombay in case of Vijay Vishin Meghani v. Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome-tax ((2017) 251 TAXMANN 270) where the Hon. High Court has condone the delay in\nfiling of appeal of 2984 days.\nc) Hon. ITAT, Delhi in case of Oracle India

VINAYAK CARE SOLUTATION (P) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE OTO WARD 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ito-3(2) Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 115, Atlanta Estate Vs. Goregaon, Mulund Link Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcv8500G Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema & P.D. Nagar Ars Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhopal Dated 08.02.2016 For The Assessment

Section 5 of the 1963 Act should be such so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The existence of sufficient cause depends upon facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied in deciding such cases. 10. The Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. (supra) and R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneswari

AKSHAY ACADEMY,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

5 of 19 ITANo.199/Ind/2024 Akshay Academy be allowed which was also realized by the assesse while making a fresh claim before the AO during the assessment proceedings which is referred by the AO in para 2.2 as under: “2.2 Further, the assessee vide his letter uploaded on 30.1.2021 has stated that Deduction under section 10(23C) (iiiad) is claimed incorrectly

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

delay of\n78/74 days is condoned taking into account the explanation given by\nassessee in above application in the light of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs\nMst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 having settled\nthe law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the\ncause of substantial justice.\n4. Brief facts

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

11 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 5. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the material held on record to which our attention has been drawn. We are aware of section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the ITAT

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

11 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 5. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the material held on record to which our attention has been drawn. We are aware of section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the ITAT

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

5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There was a delay of 191 days in filing of these appeals before CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has passed identical orders for both the years after considering the reasons given in Form-35 for delay and declined the condonation of delay in para

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

5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There was a delay of 191 days in filing of these appeals before CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has passed identical orders for both the years after considering the reasons given in Form-35 for delay and declined the condonation of delay in para

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

In the result the \"Impugned order\" is set aside as and by\nway of remand back to the file of the Ld

11 of the IT Act and not considering\nthe judgment of the Hon. Tribunal in the case of Indore Contract Bridge\nAssociation. The addition may please be deleted.\n5. The taxing of gross total income may please be deleted.\n6. The assessee craves to amend, alter or delete any of the ground of\nappeal.\n3.\nRecord of Hearing\n3.1

ITO(EXEMPTION), INDORE vs. AROGYA SEVA MANDAL, BURHANPUR MADHYA PRADESH

Appeal is dismissed

5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The revenue has appealed against an order that granted exemption under Section 11/12 to the assessee, a charitable trust. The exemption was denied by the AO because the audit report in Form 10B was filed with a delay

M/S. M. P. COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION & TRAINING BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (EXEMPYION) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section 11

M/S. M. P. COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION & TRAINING BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (EXEMPYION) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section 11

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Vaishali Developers & Income-Tax Officer, Builders, 1(2), बनाम/ 240, M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aacfv7638P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

11 of 17 Vaishali Developers & Builders,Bhopal ITA No. 357/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13 (iii) Ld. DR submitted that it is not a lapse of the counsel alone, the assessee has also contributed in making delay which is discernible from a clinching fact that the assessee had pursued appeals of other assessment-years, namely

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

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; I.T.A. No.511/Ind/2024 11 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, we paid the challan for appeal fees immediately and accordingly the present appeal is being filed without any further delay. 5. Hence, in the interest of substantial justice, Hon'ble Bench is hereby requested to-condone the delay in filing of the present appeal and admit the appeal as legal and valid

M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

condonation of such delay has not been submitted. In a computerized environment, the return are filed on line and the relevant order is also available online and sent by e -mail. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for having been filed beyond the time allowed under section 249(2).It is also seen from the communication from CPC dated 11.06.2013 filed

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

delayed return, the same cannot be\ncalled to be a non-est return in law.\n8. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of\nthe orders of the lower authorities, we find that undisputedly the\nreturn was not filed by the assessee within the time prescribed\nunder section 148 of the Act. But for that reason

MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION,POLOGROUND, INDUSTRIAL STATE vs. EXEMPTION WARD INDORE, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nWe have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and perused\nthe case record including the impugned orders.\n5.\nIn these matters, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of CIT(E) in\nrejecting assessee's applications for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s\n80G. The Ld. CIT(E) has rejected