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

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

In the result the \"Impugned order\" is set aside as and by\nway of remand back to the file of the Ld

delay in filing it can be condoned. Given that the audit report was eventually filed and the assessee is a charitable trust, the Tribunal held that the substantive benefit of the report should not be denied due to a procedural lapse on the part of the auditor/counsel.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "253", "250", "154

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

MADHYA PRADESH POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the submissions of the assessee and the revenue. The Tribunal then decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "254", "154

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

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

condone delay. The explanation\noffered is general in nature, lacks corroborative evidence\nbeyond an affidavit, and does not inspire confidence\nthat the delay was due to reasons entirely beyond the\nappellant's control.\nHence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and\ntherefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act,\nI am not satisfied that

UNION BANK OF INDIA RGPV - BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

significant delay due to proceedings under section 154 should be condoned and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication." } }

PRATIBHA JAIN,INDORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is dismissed in limine

condone the delay in filing\nof Form No. 10CCB.\n\n5.8 The order u/s 143(1) dated 29-01-2024 is infructuous after the 154\norder dated 13/06/2024 and the appeal against the 143(1) order is\ndismissed as infructuous.\"\n\n7. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the\norders of lower-authorities as well

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to\namendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by\nSection 234 E to be ultra vires.\"\n14. The findings of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also\nescaped the consideration by Hon'ble ITAT. She accordingly\nrequested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any\nmiscarriage of justice

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

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

JEHAN NUMA PALACE HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT,5(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Section 80IA(4) of the Act.\n5.\nThat, at the material point of time, owing to prevailing ambiguity and lack of uniform clarity\namongst the professional fraternity, we were under the bona fide impression that maintaining\nthe physical copy of Form 10CCB in the records of the Assessee was sufficient compliance with\nthe statutory requirements.\n6.\nThat, thereafter, from Assessment

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

MAHESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ADDL JCIT (A) -1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

Section 154 by filing an\napplication electronically for rectification to CPC, for which the details are available on website https://incometax.gov.in/.\n5)To know the Common Errors that are made while filing Income Tax Return, you may log on to\nhttps://incometax.gov.in/portal/downloads/10-\n11/ITR%20%20V1.1%20%20Common%20Errors%20Guide%20for%20Rectification%20Request.pdf\nTo know the Common Errors noticed

UNION BANK OF INDIA RGPV - BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. ACIT(TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "201(1)", "201(1A)", "154", "250", "139" ], "issues": "Whether the appeals filed after significant delay should be condoned, and if so, whether

KAUSHALYA AGARWAL TRUST,INDORE vs. CPC BANGLORE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

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

condoned as\nsufficient cause is shown and appeal is admitted. It is\naccordingly taken up for hearing.\n3.2 The Ld. AR then brought to our notice that in the\n\"impugned order” the 1st appeal was dismissed only on ground\nof delay in the filing of the 1st appeal by 120 days. It was\ncontended that

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

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

154. However, the rectification request does not impact the correctness of the assessment order. Further, the department has launched a portal for easy, transparent and effective communication with the taxpayers and order and notices are bring served on that portal which is a legally complaint system. Hence, there is no merit in the ground raised by the appellant and hence