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

M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

delay of filing of appeal was caused due to pursuing alternative remedy of application under section 154 which amounts to reasonable cause and if assessee is seeking alternative option than the appeal should be condoned in such Kalindi Palace proportion the following case laws are relevant. . 1

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

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

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

1) of the act and\ndemand was created. Later the assessee filed an application\nfor rectification u/s 154 which culminated in the “impugned\norder u/s 154 of the act". The order u/s 154 is dated\n30/12/2021. Till this stage also the assessee has not made\nany attempt to file the form 10B (AR). Even before the CIT (A)\nwhen

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

1)", "201(1A)", "154", "250", "139", "31ACB" ], "issues": "Whether the appeals filed after significant delay due to proceedings under section 154 should be condoned

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

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

1. That the ground no.1 in the Memo of appeal originally reads as under: “that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee’s claim for interest for which assessee was eligible on account of gross and unreasonable delay in granting the refund” 2. That an application was made on 21.03.2017 to amend the aforesaid ground No.1 reads

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

1. That the ground no.1 in the Memo of appeal originally reads as under: “that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee’s claim for interest for which assessee was eligible on account of gross and unreasonable delay in granting the refund” 2. That an application was made on 21.03.2017 to amend the aforesaid ground No.1 reads

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

1. That the ground no.1 in the Memo of appeal originally reads as under: “that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee’s claim for interest for which assessee was eligible on account of gross and unreasonable delay in granting the refund” 2. That an application was made on 21.03.2017 to amend the aforesaid ground No.1 reads

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

1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 2. That the IL, CIT(A) was unjustified in passing an ex-parte order without giving meaningful opportunity to the appellant. (Tax Effect : 10,45,950/-) 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

1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 2. That the IL, CIT(A) was unjustified in passing an ex-parte order without giving meaningful opportunity to the appellant. (Tax Effect : 10,45,950/-) 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

1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 2. That the IL, CIT(A) was unjustified in passing an ex-parte order without giving meaningful opportunity to the appellant. (Tax Effect : 10,45,950/-) 3. That the Ld CIT(A) was unjustified in not condoning the delay

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

DEVI ANUSUIYA VIDYA SANSTHAN,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

154 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act"]\nfor Assessment-Year [“AY"] 2020-21, the assessee has filed this appeal on\nthe grounds as mentioned in Form No. 36 (Appeal Memo).\n2. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\nDevi Anusuiya Vidya Sansthan\nITA No. 472/Ind/2025 – AY 2020-21\n(i)\nThe assessee is a charitable institution

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

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

Appeal is allowed

1), you may seek rectification under 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

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

section 154 to allow the set off the loss to the business income was accepted; cannot be a sufficient cause to condone delay.” Page 4 of 9 ITANo.549/Ind/2023 Vijay Kumar Parekh 4.1 Thus, the CIT(A) has stated that no cause of delay is forthcoming from narration that no speaking order was received by the assesse and was unaware