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(3

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

3)", "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

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) &\n143(3B) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act"] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-\n19, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:\n\n1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd CIT(A) erred confirming the action of the Ld Assessing Officer in denying\nthe

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

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 of delay. The Learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the delay

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDUS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, RAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the exemption under section 11 can be denied solely on the ground of delayed filing of the audit report in Form 10B when the delay was condoned

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

RAMRATI SAHU,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay. The appeal was admitted for hearing.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "54B", "253(5)", "250(6)" ], "issues

SHRI SANDEEEP RAGHUVANSHI,HARDA vs. THE PCIT.BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisandeep Raghuvanshi Pr. Cit 25D Jambheshwar Bhawan Bhopal Vs. Nehru Colony Harda (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aicpr 3080 M Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11 .01.2024

143(3) r.w. section 263 and subsequent order passed by the AO on 25.03.2023 the assessee and his counsel consulted a senior counsel for appropriate remedy against the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee was advised to immediately file an appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order and therefore, there is a delay of 320 days

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

condonation of delay of 156 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard, in para 2.6 of the application/affidavit it has been mentioned as under:- “2.6. However, during the course of appeal as filed against the order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of the delay and submitted\nthat this is a case of negligence on the part of the assessee which\ncannot be accepted as a reasonable cause for delay of 349 days in\nfiling the present appeal.\n4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as perused\nthe relevant materials on record. The assessee in the affidavit

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

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned. Most respectfully we also place reliance on the judgement of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in civil Appeal No. 2395/2008 in the case case of\nImprovement Trust Ludhiana v. Ujakar Singh & another vide judgment dated\n09/02/2010 in which it is held that unless malafides at large, delay should be\ncondoned. Matters should be disposed of on merits

SMT. MEHA JAIN,JALGAON vs. DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

delay of 30 days in filing present appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider and adjudicate upon the additional ground raised by the appellant that under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is in contravention

SHRI KISHAN YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

delay and decided to condone it to ensure substantial justice. The appeal was admitted and the matter was remanded.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3

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(3