ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in business of providing credit facilities to its members. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 40/-. In the return of income so filed, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 22,95,983/- u/s 80P(2

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

12 SCC\n649: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 713: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 450: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S)\n595]].\n38. In N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of India [N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of\nIndia, 1994 SCC OnLine Bom 574: (1995) 1 Mah LJ 503], a Division\nBench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur considered, though in the\ncontext of delay

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

12 SCC\n649: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 713: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 450: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S)\n595]].\n38. In N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of India [N.L. Abhyankar v. Union of\nIndia, 1994 SCC OnLine Bom 574: (1995) 1 Mah LJ 503], a Division\nBench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur considered, though in the\ncontext of delay

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

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

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

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

12 to 14, it is stated that the deponent Smt. Prarthana Sharma was director of assessee who recently got married in May, 2023 and moved to Delhi after marriage. She did not come to Indore after passing of impugned order and could not co-ordinate with the counsel Page 2 of 24 Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore. for filing

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

12 exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to\nincome-tax in any previous year, the accounts of the trust or\ninstitution for that year have to be audited by an\naccountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of\nsection 288 and the person in receipt of the income is required to\nfurnish along with

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

section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. We are also conscious of the landmark judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

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

section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. We are also conscious of the landmark judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

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

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

condonation of delay is for Form No.10IC and\nu/s 115BAA of the Act in case of delay is for Form No.10ID\nin \"filing status” in part-A GEN of the form of return of\nincome ITR-6.\n(iii) The assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from\nfiling such form before the expiry of the time allowed and\nthe case

M/S. BARKATUIIAH VISHWAVIDYALAYA ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & 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

AARAMBH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BYHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaarambh Foundation Cit-(Exemption) 220 Saket Nagar Bhopal Saket Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabaa 0609F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

delay of 93 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT grossly erred in issuing order rejecting application for registration under section 12AB of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT grossly erred on facts and also in law by considering charitable activities as commercial activities and rejecting application

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

12. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s.249(2) of the Act. Thus, this clearly is a case of deliberate inaction and delay on the part of the appellant. Non-adherence to the prescribed period of limitation will only lead

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

12. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s.249(2) of the Act. Thus, this clearly is a case of deliberate inaction and delay on the part of the appellant. Non-adherence to the prescribed period of limitation will only lead

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 4. The assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “(1) The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,38,997/- being interest received on fixed deposit on the bank as income from other sources. (2) It was proved before

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

12 Sheetal Nath Colonizers ITA No. 1094/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 be condoned without there being compelling grounds, as laid down by the Hon'ble Courts. 5.9 On the given facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal which was vested with the appellant has not been exercised within the stipulated time under section 249(2). Thus, this

BSM SHELTER ESTATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No. 291/Ind/2024(Ay: 2015-16) Bsm Shelter Estate India Ito 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. 27/2/3, Gram Bhangarb, Near Mr-10, Indore (Pan: Aafcb3409E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing