SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted and heard. 6. The assessee is aggrieved by the late fee imposed by AO u/s 234E for delay filing of Statements of TDS in Form No. 24Q. Admittedly, the Statements relate to Quarter-2 and Quarter-3 of Financial Year 2012-13 and the assessee is claiming that prior to 01.06.2015, there

RADHAKRISHNA AKSHAR VIKAS NYAS ,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradhakrishna Akshar Vikas Acit 3(1) Nyas Bhopal Vs. Braj Colony Sironj Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatr 8725M Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

delay in filing the present appeal and accordingly the same is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs. 37,89,000/- to the total income of the appellant on account of treating donations as the "anonymous donation" u/s. 115BBC

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

115 as unexplained money u/s 69A against cash deposits. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation without giving an opportunity

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

115 as unexplained money u/s 69A against cash deposits. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation without giving an opportunity

SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

115 days. The assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The [ITA No.457/Ind/2017] [Mr. Dinesh Nigam, Indore] Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application. The application is duly supported by the affidavit. However, the Ld. D.R. opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that there is no reasonable cause which prevented

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

115 BBE of the IT Act. b) This case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of the information that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- in its bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. during the year. It is further seen that the assessee has not filed

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the revenue is treated as filed within the period of limitation. 3. The Revenue has raised following ground of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting

GIRIRAJIJI RAGHUNANDAN SHIKSHA PRASAR AND VIKAS SAMITI ,INDORE vs. ITO ( EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Girirajji Income-Tax Officer Raghunandan Shiksha (Exemption), Prasar & Vikas Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ 45, Vaishali Nagar, Vs. Kotra Sultanabad, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaba59632G Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2024

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- (i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order u/s 250 of the Act in the case of the appellant for assessment year 2009-10 without

SHRI LEELAHAR PALASIYAWALA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(4), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Leeladhar Palasiyawala, Pr.Cit-1, Village Kalariya, Post Indore बनाम/ Kalariya, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bqdppo511K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

115 days had occurred due to mis-understanding of law by counsel whereby he filed appeal against consequential assessment-order instead of impugned order. With this submission, Ld. AR prayed that the entire delay of 490 days is duly explained, the same is not because of any lethargy, negligence or mala fide intention of assessee and the assessee does

SANJANA CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. AID, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

115 BAA of the Act read with Rule 21AE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules), the assessee company is required to submit Form 10-IC electronically on or before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and such option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years. 1.3 Failure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 68. As a result, ground no 2 is partly allowed. (5). In result, the appeal is partly allowed. 4. That the Revenue being aggrieved by the “Impugned order” has preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the Form No. 36 against the “Impugned order” which are as under:- “1. Ground

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause