M/S NEO SACK LTD. vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

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

section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation but it depends on the discretion of the Court. The Court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause which counts and not length of delay. 10. In view of the above legal position

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

10 or sub- clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act, as the case may be. Hence, in cases where the trust has already made an application in Form Ho. 10AB under the said provisions but such application has been furnished after 30.09.2022 and where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has not passed

BISA NEEMA PANCHAYAT BHAWAN TRUST,M.G ROAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) BHOPAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaa.Y. : 2023-24 Bisa Neema Panchayat Commissioner Of Income- Bhawan Trust, Tax (Exemption), बनाम/ 285, M.G. Road, Bhopal Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactb4287E Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, C.A. & Ar Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2024

condonation of delay which we have already dealt in foregoing part of this order. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is not pressing Ground No. 4 since the same does not emanate from impugned order. Hence, Ground No. 4 is dismissed as non-pressed. By means of all other grounds, the assessee has raised a single grievance that

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

condone the delay of 106 days and admit the appeal and allow the appeal proceeded with for adjudication. 6. Now we shall deal with regular grounds of appeal of the assessee which reads as us under:- 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-II Indore has erred in confirming penalty

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

13 DTR 372 (ITAT, Delhi), Ld. AR prayed to condone the delay in present matters. During arguments, when the Bench raised a pointed query to Ld. AR as to the period upto which the previous counsel handled assessee’s tax matters, Ld. AR asserted standing at the Bar that he worked till the year 2020. 4. Per contra

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

13 DTR 372 (ITAT, Delhi), Ld. AR prayed to condone the delay in present matters. During arguments, when the Bench raised a pointed query to Ld. AR as to the period upto which the previous counsel handled assessee’s tax matters, Ld. AR asserted standing at the Bar that he worked till the year 2020. 4. Per contra

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

10. It is noted that the appellant is an AOP and its books of accounts were audited. Then it is not clear what other necessary documents were being gathered and also it is seen that no documents explaining cash credits were produced during the appeal proceedings. From the above it reveals that the appellant has not produced sufficient cause which

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

10. It is noted that the appellant is an AOP and its books of accounts were audited. Then it is not clear what other necessary documents were being gathered and also it is seen that no documents explaining cash credits were produced during the appeal proceedings. From the above it reveals that the appellant has not produced sufficient cause which

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

10), The AO issued first refund order on 20.8.2007 (a copy enclosed marked Annexure 11). M/s. Hope Textiles Ltd., Indore 13. The appellant had to move an application u/s 154 of Income Tax Act on 13.8.2007 claiming interest and interest on interest. The A.O. by order dt. 27.2.2008 allowed the refund of interest but disallowed the balance amount. (a copy

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

10), The AO issued first refund order on 20.8.2007 (a copy enclosed marked Annexure 11). M/s. Hope Textiles Ltd., Indore 13. The appellant had to move an application u/s 154 of Income Tax Act on 13.8.2007 claiming interest and interest on interest. The A.O. by order dt. 27.2.2008 allowed the refund of interest but disallowed the balance amount. (a copy

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

10), The AO issued first refund order on 20.8.2007 (a copy enclosed marked Annexure 11). M/s. Hope Textiles Ltd., Indore 13. The appellant had to move an application u/s 154 of Income Tax Act on 13.8.2007 claiming interest and interest on interest. The A.O. by order dt. 27.2.2008 allowed the refund of interest but disallowed the balance amount. (a copy

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

13 of condonation application, Ld. AR submitted that the delay has occurred due to the fact that the assessee’s previous counsel failed to keep the track of the assessee’s first-appeal before CIT(A) and did not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A) and even the counsel was not aware of the impugned order which was passed

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)

13 of condonation application, Ld. AR submitted that the delay has occurred due to the fact that the assessee’s previous counsel failed to keep the track of the assessee’s first-appeal before CIT(A) and did not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A) and even the counsel was not aware of the impugned order which was passed

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

10,236/- was not adjusted against earlier year unabsorbed deprecation of Rs.8,06,960/-. The assessee has electronically filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act on 19.06.2013 requesting to allow unabsorbed depreciation as claimed in return. 3. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who also dismissed the appeal. 4. Now the assessee

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

13. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the Instruction No.13/2006 dated 22.12.2006 . For the sake of clarity Instruction No.13 of 2006 is reproduced as under :- “INSTRUCTION NO. 13/2006, DATED 22-12-2006 1. The procedure for dealing with the applications for condonation of delay in filing returns and claiming refund is presently governed by the Board

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

condone the delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 55,00,000/- even when

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay