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

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. 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.

condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) which are pending as on the date of issue of this instruction. ” 14. There is no ambiguity under the law that the scrutiny assessment is to be framed as per the provisions of Section 143

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by

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

section 249 of the Income Tax Act. Meanwhile the appellant was of the opinion that his case was being duly handled with due diligence and care by his authorized representative. It was only when the penalty notices were furnished to him, he came to realize that no appropriate response was fled during the assessment proceedings and no appeal was filed

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

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

143 taxmann.com 418 (Ahmedabad ITAT), the Hon'ble ITAT held that wherever there was delay in filing Form No. 10B, assessee was required to approach jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form 10B and the Commissioner (Appeal) had no power to condone such delay as per section

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

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

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

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

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

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, we paid the challan for appeal fees immediately and accordingly the present appeal is being filed without any further delay. 5. Hence, in the interest of substantial justice, Hon'ble Bench is hereby requested to-condone the delay in filing of the present appeal and admit the appeal as legal and valid

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone the delay which had occurred while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee herein is a Merchant Navy Officer and by the very nature of his job he is required to be on the sea on a ship. The assessee herein Page 9 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys

AMIT VYAS,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN , UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

143(3) was completed on 22.12.2017 and same along with demand notice was served to the appellant on 30.01.2018 as per information provided in Form 35. Thus, the appellant was very much aware about the assessment order since 30.01.2018. The appellant is supposed to explain a valid reason for delay so that this office could have considered condoning the delay

NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM KARMCHARI KALYAN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,UJJAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Nagar Palika Nigam Cpc, Bangaluru / Karmchari Kalyan Sakh Cit, Nfac, Delhi Sahakari Sanstha बनाम/ Maryadit, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactn7778G Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. Page 3 of 9 Nagar Palika Nigam Karmchari Kalyan Sakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain ITA No. 198/Ind/2024 – AY 2019-20 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a society

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

143(3) is invalid, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, illegal and liable to be quashed. (Tax Effect :20,88,985/-) 2. That the Ld, CIT(A) was unjustified in passing an ex-parte order without giving meaningful opportunity to the appellant. (Tax Effect :20,88,985/-) 3. That the Ld CIT(A) was unjustified in 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

143(3) is invalid, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, illegal and liable to be quashed. (Tax Effect :20,88,985/-) 2. That the Ld, CIT(A) was unjustified in passing an ex-parte order without giving meaningful opportunity to the appellant. (Tax Effect :20,88,985/-) 3. That the Ld CIT(A) was unjustified in not condoning the delay