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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Section 5 of the Limitation Act\nmay also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this\ncase, the CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 Petitioners failed to make out a\nstrong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach,\nmay adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal\napproach does not mean that

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

Appeal is dismissed

20 of 22\nC.I. Finlease Private Limited\nITA No. 396/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13\n14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court did\nnot commit any mistake in dismissing the delay condonation application of\nthe present appellant.'\nThus, it is crystal clear from the above legal proposition that the discretion\nto condone the delay

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

20 IT} 5 (Indore Bench) 07) Narayan Balmukund Dubey vs. CIT (2016) 28 ITJ 348 (Indore Bench) 08) M/s. Emsons Organics Ltd vs. DCIT (Appeal No.1088 to 1092/CHD/2 0 18) [Chandigarh Bench) 09) M/s. Bhagwati Colonizers Pvt. Ltd, Mansa (Appeal No.169/Amr/2015) [Amritsar Bench] 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the submissions of the assessee and submitted that

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 12A and 80G of the Act, which were followed up by another set of applications filed directly with the DIT (Exemptions) on 21.12.2005; these applications were obviously delayed and the condonation application was filed on 14.03.2006 narrating the events that led to the delay. 19. In the above circumstances, it seems to us that the Tribunal has acted judicially

M P RAJYA POWERLOOM BUNKAR SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT,BURHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BURHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp Rajya Powerloom Bunkar Income Tax Officer Sakahari Sangh Maryadit Burhanpur Vs. Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam5938R Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

20 18-19 to A Y 2022-23, regarding condonation of delay in furnishing return of income and to treat such returns as 'returns furnished within the due date under sub- .' .. section

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

20,79,031/-. Since the ITA order granting relief to the extent of actual payment was only passed in 1992, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the department. b) That, CBDT had condoned delay u/s 119(2)(c ) on 16.7.1999, therefore there was no delay on the part of assessee upto September 1999. c) That, 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

20,79,031/-. Since the ITA order granting relief to the extent of actual payment was only passed in 1992, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the department. b) That, CBDT had condoned delay u/s 119(2)(c ) on 16.7.1999, therefore there was no delay on the part of assessee upto September 1999. c) That, 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

20,79,031/-. Since the ITA order granting relief to the extent of actual payment was only passed in 1992, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the department. b) That, CBDT had condoned delay u/s 119(2)(c ) on 16.7.1999, therefore there was no delay on the part of assessee upto September 1999. c) That, the appellant

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

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by 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

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by 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

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

20 of 22\nthe Ld. DR that the assessee has twisted the facts on and off and\nis therefore not entitled for any relief whatsoever.\n5.\nOrder\n5.1 In the premises set out herein above, we dismiss the appeal\nof the assessee on the ground of delay before the 1st appellate\nauthority and upheld the “impugned order”.\n5.2

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

20,906/- income in consequence to misreporting of income (1-2) 4. Tax on Assessed Income (Tax+SC+EC 3,43,388/- only) 5. Tax on Income excluding under 1,12,458/- reported Income in consequence to misreported income (3) 6. Tax on underreported Income in 2,30,930/- consequence to misreported income (4-5) Penalty leviable

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

condonation of delay was made by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) but submission were made. The “Impugned Order” is common order on Quantum and Penalty was again emphasised. It was also submitted that there was a non-representation before the Ld. CIT (A). It was then submitted that in the paper book placed on record page

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

condonation of delay was made by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) but submission were made. The “Impugned Order” is common order on Quantum and Penalty was again emphasised. It was also submitted that there was a non-representation before the Ld. CIT (A). It was then submitted that in the paper book placed on record page

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

delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1), is only an addendum to the section to provide for the machinery provision to compute the fee payable u/s 234E at the time of processing of TDS statement and the same is enabling for processes in nature. This is very much evident

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

delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1), is only an addendum to the section to provide for the machinery provision to compute the fee payable u/s 234E at the time of processing of TDS statement and the same is enabling for processes in nature. This is very much evident

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.“That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even