SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay

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.

154, 155 [, 158BFA], [sub-section (1A) of section 201, sections 210, 211, -: 28 :- M.LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM. 234A, 234B, 234C [, 234E]], [270A] 271 and 273 or otherwise), general or special orders in respect of any class of incomes [or fringe benefits] or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to assessees) as to the guidelines, principles

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

condoning the delay, despite having sufficient reasons. It is submitted that immediately on receipt of order under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

delay except assertion that it was not aware of the order passed and under bonafide belief that the objection raised under the provisions of section 154 to allow the set off the loss to the business income was accepted; cannot be a sufficient cause to condone

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

condonation of delay in making balance payment. CBDT issued order u/s 119(2)(c) on 16.07.1999. that means delay was on the part of the assessee at least upto Sept. 1999 and not on the part of the department. Effect of CBDT’s order was given by the department in 2000. The AO did not allow interest u/s 244A

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

condonation of delay in making balance payment. CBDT issued order u/s 119(2)(c) on 16.07.1999. that means delay was on the part of the assessee at least upto Sept. 1999 and not on the part of the department. Effect of CBDT’s order was given by the department in 2000. The AO did not allow interest u/s 244A

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

condonation of delay in making balance payment. CBDT issued order u/s 119(2)(c) on 16.07.1999. that means delay was on the part of the assessee at least upto Sept. 1999 and not on the part of the department. Effect of CBDT’s order was given by the department in 2000. The AO did not allow interest u/s 244A

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

154 where the only reason for passing such order was charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, which is debtable in nature (Tax Effect 10,45,950/-) 5. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in not considering the fact that if the interest u/s 234A & 234B is not charged while passing the assessment order it means that assessing

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

154 where the only reason for passing such order was charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, which is debtable in nature (Tax Effect 10,45,950/-) 5. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in not considering the fact that if the interest u/s 234A & 234B is not charged while passing the assessment order it means that assessing

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

154 where the only reason for passing such order was charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, which is debtable in nature (Tax Effect 10,45,950/-) 5. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in not considering the fact that if the interest u/s 234A & 234B is not charged while passing the assessment order it means that assessing

HARE RAM MANDIR TRUST,BHOPAL vs. ITO-EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

section 154 of the Act, the action of the AO by rejecting the said rectification petition is sustainable and accordingly the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 6. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 2.7 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised

HARE RAM MANDIR TRUST,BHOPAL vs. ITO -EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

section 154 of the Act, the action of the AO by rejecting the said rectification petition is sustainable and accordingly the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 6. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 2.7 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

condone delay. The explanation offered is general in nature, lacks corroborative evidence beyond an affidavit, and does not inspire confidence that the delay was due to reasons entirely beyond the appellant's control. Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act, I am not satisfied that

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) of 1769 days. The assessee has not explained sufficient cause for such delay and has taken excuse of filing petition u/s 154 of the Act which was already disposed off by the CPC on 14.5.2019 within the period of 3 months from

PITAMBER WADHWANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Pitamber Wadhwani, Dcit-1(1) 101, Saakaar Kunj, 3 Indore बनाम/ Shanti Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aacpw6714B Assessee By Shri Sandeep Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. It further emerged during hearing that the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal by passing following order: “Decision on Condonation of Delay: The facts of the case and the grounds raised

INDORE CONTRACT BRIDGE ASSOCIATION YEASHWANT CLUB,INDORE vs. ITO ,WARD-EXAMPTION , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indore Contract Bridge Cpc, Association, Bangalore बनाम/ Yashwant Club, Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaai 1652 F Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

condoned the delay respectfully following the landmark decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387. Ld. AR also submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has made an observation “the appellant (assessee) has not filed any rectification request” but this observation is contrary to the factual position

SAVITRI BAI JHAWAR SEWA NYAS,KHANDWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2020-21 Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Ito (Exemption ) Nyas, Indore Viklang Bal Sewa Ashram, बनाम/ Bt College Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats5055P Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, which is against the principles of natural justice and thus, the Appellate Order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Jt. CIT(A), is liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above