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

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

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

2)\nThe respondent\n(3)\nCIT\n(4)\nCIT(A)\n(5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nSd/-\n(B.M. BIYANI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy order\nAssistant Registrar\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore\nPage 19 of 19", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed two appeals against the order of CIT(E) rejecting their applications for registration under section 12AB

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

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

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

CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10B FOR\nYEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19\nCIRCULAR NO. 10 (F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-1), DATED 22-5-2019\nUnder the provisions of section 12A of Income-tax Act, 1961\n(hereafter 'Act) where the total income of a trust on institution as\ncomputed under the Act without giving effect to the provisions

JIWAJI UNIVERSITY,GWALIOR vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee are dismissed

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

12A read as under: “(2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June 2007, the provisions of section 11 & 12 shall apply in relation the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made.” 6. Therefore, where an application has been made

JIWAJI UNIVERSITY,GWALIOR vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee are dismissed

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

12A read as under: “(2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June 2007, the provisions of section 11 & 12 shall apply in relation the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made.” 6. Therefore, where an application has been made

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

2 SCC 387\nthat whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed\nto each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting\na justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the\nprovision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal

BHARTIYA AADARSH SHIKSHAN SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhartiya Aadarsh Deputy Commissioner Of Shikshan Samiti, Income-Tax (Exemption), Manas Bhawan, Bhopal बनाम/ Sanjit Road, Vs. Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabab2693N Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, C.A. & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024

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. Therefore, taking into account the guidance given by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a liberal view and condone delay subject to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned in last

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

Appeal is dismissed

condone such delays.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "11", "12", "11/12", "139(1)", "12AB", "12A", "119(2)(b)" ], "issues": "Whether

SMT PUSHPLATA CHANDRAWAT,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CPC , BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Pushplata Chandrawat, V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. House No. 34-Bg, Scheme No. 74-C, Vijay Nagar, Indore Pan-Adapc8144L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 3 Assessment Year. 2018-19 Smt. Pushplata Chandawat v. DCIT

MALWA PATIDAR SAMAJ SHIKSHA SAMITI ,HATPIPLIYA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimalwa Patidar Samaj Shiksha Adit, Cpc Samiti Bangaluru Hatpiplya Tehsil Bagli Vs. Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam4373Q Assessee By Mrs. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2024

condonation of delay in filing for filing the form 10BB u/s 119(2)(b) before the competent authority as specified by the CBDT in Circular no.15/2022 dated 19.07.2022. It is pertinent to note that the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) was claimed by the assesse only after the assesse was granted approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) vide order

DEVI ANUSUIYA VIDYA SANSTHAN,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

2) as discussed in foregoing part of this order. The\nAO has accepted assessee's claim vide Para 4.4 of assessment-order.\nHowever, vide Para 4.5 & 4.6 of assessment-order, the AO ultimately denied\nexemption u/s 11/12 to assessee for a different reason i.e. the return of\nincome was filed belatedly u/s 139(4) on 31.03.2018 whereas the section\n139

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

2 SCC 387\nthat whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed\nto each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting\na justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the\nprovision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal

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

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Page 5 of 27 ITANo.229/Ind/2023 M/s Rana & Joshi Buildtech

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

condoned the delay of filing of form 10B vide his order dated 06.08.2024. Therefore, in our considered opinion, on this issue there should not be any denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. However, with regards to delay in filing of ROI, section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act stipulates that to claim exemption