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

Appeal is dismissed

delay was not credible, as there were contradictions in the timeline provided by the previous counsel and evidence suggested the assessee was also negligent. Citing previous judgments and the principle of sufficient cause, the Tribunal rejected the condonation application.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143

SAQUIB AHMED,PIPARIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

143(2)", "142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is condonable

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

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], the assessee has filed the captioned two appeals. Page 1 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 2. The registry has informed that there is a delay of 7 years & 104 days and 6 years & 83 days in filing the captioned ITAs respectively

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

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], the assessee has filed the captioned two appeals. Page 1 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 2. The registry has informed that there is a delay of 7 years & 104 days and 6 years & 83 days in filing the captioned ITAs respectively

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

Section 143(1) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has filed the present appeal on 24th June, 2022 against the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2021 therefore, there is a delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation

SHRADDHA SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA,BARWANI vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 143(1) before its amendment.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay of 349 days in filing the appeal, subject

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

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

condoned. The assessee claimed that their authorized representative failed to file the appeal on time, and they were unaware of the proceedings. The CIT(A) found the explanation insufficient and unsubstantiated.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity for the assessee to explain the delay, violating the principles

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2010-11. Upon receipt of the notice on Revenue’s appeal, the assessee also filed the aforesaid Cross Objection. Both are disposed of by this common order. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of departmental appeal

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2010-11. Upon receipt of the notice on Revenue’s appeal, the assessee also filed the aforesaid Cross Objection. Both are disposed of by this common order. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of departmental appeal

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2010-11. Upon receipt of the notice on Revenue’s appeal, the assessee also filed the aforesaid Cross Objection. Both are disposed of by this common order. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of departmental appeal

M/S. DIASPARK INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE NFAC ,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

condoned the delay of 184 days and adjudicated the issue on merit. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the Asstt.year 2018-19 on 7.3.2019 declaring total taxable income of Rs.2,88,40,270/-. The return was processed under section 143

M/S LAURELS SCHOOL AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION P.LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Laurels School & V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Management Institutions Pvt. Ltd. 7, Press Complex, A.B. Road, Behind Dainik Bhaskar Press, Indore. Pan-Aaacl4970D (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: 06.04.2023

143(1) by CPC, Bangalore for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 66 days in filing the present appeal, the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo-moto cognizance of extension of limitation writ petition

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay could not be condoned.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "253", "143(3)", "270A", "274", "270AA", "270AA(1)", "270AA(2)", "156", "246A

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

143(3) r.w.s.\n254\nPage 1 of 9\nAnil Turakhia\nITA Nos.593 to 596/Ind/2025-\nAYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15\n2\n594/Ind/2025\n2013-14\nOrder of first-appeal dated\n28.05.2024 passed by\nCIT(A), National Faceless\nAssessment-order\n347\ndated 27.09.2021\ndays\nAppeal Centre, bearing DIN:\npassed by AO,\nNational Faceless\nITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-\nAssessment Centre\n25/1065196815(1)\nu/s 147 r.w.s

MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay, citing \"sufficient cause\" and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the delay was credible.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143

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

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

143(3) / 263 to be completed, which was completed, vide order dated 13th December, 2019 , I.T.A. No.511/Ind/2024 9 Assessment Year: 2014-15 and thereafter, the assessee has proceeded to file appeal before the first appellate authority on 28th December, 2019, and all along the way, the assessee has been guided and supported by qualified chartered accountants in all respects

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condonation of delay. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations of limitation.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253(5) of the Income-tax Act", "250(6) of the Income-tax Act", "143