ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

1-2\nAccident at Rani Sati Gate. (In which\nhis Scooty was hit by Motor Cycle-\nMP09 MR 7978). The Appellant was\nthen taken in Ambulance to Shalby\nHospital\n16.02.2016\nThe appellant underwent surgery as\nsuffered from:-\n"C/O Fracture of left Shaft of Femur\nand Fracture of Mandible", the\nsurgery was for fixation for the same.\nMedical Certificate dated

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

1-2\n16.02.2016\nThe appellant underwent surgery as\nsuffered from:-\n"C/O Fracture of left Shaft of Femur\nand Fracture of Mandible", the\nsurgery was for fixation for the same.\nMedical Certificate dated\n16.02.2016 [PB 3-5]\n20.02.16\nHe was hospitalized for 7 days as per\ntreating consultant Dr Praveen\nAgrawal\nAlso underwent CT Brain and Face\nscan

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

1-2\n16.02.2016\nThe appellant underwent surgery as\nsuffered from:-\n\"C/O Fracture of left Shaft of Femur\nand Fracture of Mandible\", the\nsurgery was for fixation for the same.\nMedical Certificate dated\n16.02.2016 [PB 3-5]\n20.02.16\nHe was hospitalized for 7 days as per\ntreating consultant Dr Praveen\nAgrawal\nAlso underwent CT Brain and Face\nscan

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH PUAR SON & LR OF LATE TUKOJI ROA PUAR,DEWAS vs. THE PR. CIT-1, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vikram Singh Paur, Pr. Cit Son & Legal Heir Of Late Shri Bhopal बनाम/ Tukoji Rao Puar Vs. Dewas (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Agdpp8186B Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 .05.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Pr. Cit, Bhopal Dated 18.03.2016 For The Assessment Year

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed." [CLPB 12 back side] c. The doctrine

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

1-2\n16.02.2016\nThe appellant underwent surgery as\nsuffered from:-\n"C/O Fracture of left Shaft of Femur\nand Fracture of Mandible", the\nsurgery was for fixation for the same.\nMedical Certificate dated\n16.02.2016 [PB 3-5]\n20.02.16\nHe was hospitalized for 7 days as per\ntreating consultant Dr Praveen\nAgrawal\nAlso underwent CT Brain and Face\nscan

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

161/-. The total income as per the return of income filed was at Rs. 15,37,355/- . The addition of Rs. 2,30,806/- was made as unaccounted income by virtue of para 8,9 & 10 of the aforesaid assessment order. That the aforesaid “Assessment order” is dated 24.09.2019 which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the objects sought to be achieved by prescribing the time-limit, it would be the duty of the officer to consider the documents, even submitted belatedly. Thus, this decision also supports the view that even if the prescribed form is submitted belatedly

WAKEUP FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the grounds of

Bench: Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.895 & 898/Ind/2024 (Hybrid Hearing) Wakeup Foundation, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 41/411, Jangampura, South Bhopal Rajmohalla, Mp - 452002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaw9534A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. The facts of the case are that the assessee “Wakeup Foundation, PAN – AAAW9534A” had applied for registration under the new provisions of section 12AB and 80G of the Act. The CIT(E) was issued two notices on 02.08.2024 and 23.08.2024 and called for various documents to process the application

WAKEUP FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the grounds of

Bench: Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.895 & 898/Ind/2024 (Hybrid Hearing) Wakeup Foundation, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 41/411, Jangampura, South Bhopal Rajmohalla, Mp - 452002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaw9534A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 6. The facts of the case are that the assessee “Wakeup Foundation, PAN – AAAW9534A” had applied for registration under the new provisions of section 12AB and 80G of the Act. The CIT(E) was issued two notices on 02.08.2024 and 23.08.2024 and called for various documents to process the application

M/S BAGORA DEVELOPERS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT OSD , INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bagora Developers Pvt. Acit- Ltd. Indore 34, Revenue Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecb6424E Assessee By Shri Siddharth Mahajan & Ashok Mahajan, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2024

condonation of delay and careful perused the relevant material on record. The impugned order was passed by the CIT(A) on 10.02.2020 and limitation for filing the appeal expired on 10.04.2020. Thus, the limitation for filing the appeal was expiring during the Covid-19 pandemic and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is now covered by the judgment

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the revenue is treated as filed within the period of limitation. 3. The Revenue has raised following ground of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting