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

condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence the time period of appeals filed by assessee before the CIT(A) have to be computed from the date of order passed under Page 17 of 23 M/s. Supreme Transport Company

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

195 days whereas the delay in filing the appeal against penalty orders is 84 days each is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to non-receipt of the orders passed by the CIT(A). Hence the Ld. AR has submitted that the appeals of the assessee may be admitted for hearing and adjudication. On the other hand

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

195 days whereas the delay in filing the appeal against penalty orders is 84 days each is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to non-receipt of the orders passed by the CIT(A). Hence the Ld. AR has submitted that the appeals of the assessee may be admitted for hearing and adjudication. On the other hand

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

195 days whereas the delay in filing the appeal against penalty orders is 84 days each is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to non-receipt of the orders passed by the CIT(A). Hence the Ld. AR has submitted that the appeals of the assessee may be admitted for hearing and adjudication. On the other hand

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

195 days whereas the delay in filing the appeal against penalty orders is 84 days each is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to non-receipt of the orders passed by the CIT(A). Hence the Ld. AR has submitted that the appeals of the assessee may be admitted for hearing and adjudication. On the other hand

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

195 days whereas the delay in filing the appeal against penalty orders is 84 days each is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to non-receipt of the orders passed by the CIT(A). Hence the Ld. AR has submitted that the appeals of the assessee may be admitted for hearing and adjudication. On the other hand

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

195 days whereas the delay in filing the appeal against penalty orders is 84 days each is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to non-receipt of the orders passed by the CIT(A). Hence the Ld. AR has submitted that the appeals of the assessee may be admitted for hearing and adjudication. On the other hand

AARAMBH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BYHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaarambh Foundation Cit-(Exemption) 220 Saket Nagar Bhopal Saket Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabaa 0609F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

delay of 93 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT grossly erred in issuing order rejecting application for registration under section 12AB of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT grossly erred on facts and also in law by considering charitable activities as commercial activities and rejecting application

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

ULTIMATE CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2010-11 Ultimate Construction, Dcit-1(1), G-1, Kamdenu Tower, Bhopal बनाम/ E-2/21, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aabfu9241J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. Page 3 of 14 Ultimate Construction, Bhopal vs. Dy. CIT,1(1), Bhopal, ITA No. 379/Ind/2023 – AY 2010-11 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-firm is engaged