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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

17. The explanation as given in the affidavit in support of the\napplication for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioners in the High\nCourt does not make out sufficient cause for condonation of the\ninordinate delay of 337 days in filing the appeal under Section

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

17 SCC 448], observed that the\ncourts help those, who are vigilant and \"do not slumber over their rights\".\nTherefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 1072 days in filing\nthe appeal.\nHence, the Ld. DR is very much correct in submitting that the assessee does not\ndeserve any sympathy in present cases. Needless to mention that

VINAYAK CARE SOLUTATION (P) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE OTO WARD 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ito-3(2) Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 115, Atlanta Estate Vs. Goregaon, Mulund Link Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcv8500G Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema & P.D. Nagar Ars Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhopal Dated 08.02.2016 For The Assessment

17 days. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that though the appellate order was passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-II, on 08.02.2016 yet the advocate at Bhopal did not take proper care regarding filing of 2nd appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and avoided the same on one ground or the other by given false assurances

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

section 80G of the Act. 17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation in circular No.8/2022 of CBDT dated 31.03.2022 and latest Circular No.6/2023 dated 24.05.2023, of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone 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

section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. We are also conscious of the landmark judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others

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

section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. We are also conscious of the landmark judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

17 as under: “9. Condonation of delay - The condonation of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal needs to be decided. In this case, it is seen from the records that the date of assessment order is 28-03-2022 and the said order has been duly served upon on the appellant on 28-03-2022. The appeal

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

17 as under: “9. Condonation of delay - The condonation of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal needs to be decided. In this case, it is seen from the records that the date of assessment order is 28-03-2022 and the said order has been duly served upon on the appellant on 28-03-2022. The appeal

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

17-4-18 25-6-2013 Status modified showing rectification request rejected on PB No 5 19-6-2013 and and also revealed that rectification rights transferred to jurisdictional assessing officer on 25-6-2013 as per login dated 9-11-19 08-7-2015 Appeal filed against the order of CPC Under section 143(1) Referred

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 depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

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 depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

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 depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

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

condoning the\ndelay in filing Form No. 108 and in exercise of the powers\nconferred under section 119(2) of the Act, the Central Board of\nDirect Taxes hereby directs that,\n(1) The delay in filing of Form No. 108 for AY 2016 17

AMIT VYAS,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN , UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

section 249 of the Act as both the provisions stipulate that after expiry of stipulated period of limitation as per provisions of the relevant Act, if the court satisfied that there was a “sufficient cause” for non-representing the appeal within prescribed period, then the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits by condoning the delay.” 6.3 Further

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

Condonation of Delay" along with “An\nAffidavit in support" before the Ld. CIT(A) which we have\nreproduced above (supra), we observe that it was contended by\nthe assessee that he is not well educated & had no knowledge\nabout his case that it was selected for reassessment u/s 147 of\nthe Act & that the reassessment proceedings are now\nconducted

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

17 months which be kindly\ncondoned and interest of substantial justice the appeal be kindly be admitted for adjudication.\nKindly acknowledge.\nThanking You,\nYours faithfully,\n(Appellant)\nEncl. as above\nC\nT\n8\nKishore Sevani\nITA Nos.517/Ind/2024 & ITANo.248/Ind/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2013-14\n5.\nThe contents of above application, which are self-explanatory, were\ndeliberated with reference to the supporting documents

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay of 560 days\nparticularly so incorrect facts are on record.\n3.3 The Ld. AR has also additionally submitted that in respect\nof the \"impugned assessment order\" (quantum) dated\n28.12.2019 (Assessment Year 2017-18) no first appeal was filed\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A). Section 270A of the Act contemplates\npenalty for under reporting and mis-reporting

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condone the delay of 560 days particularly so incorrect facts are on record. 3.3 The Ld. AR has also additionally submitted that in respect of the “impugned assessment order” (quantum) dated 28.12.2019 (Assessment Year 2017-18) no first appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Section 270A of the Act contemplates penalty for under reporting and mis-reporting