SHRADDHA SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA,BARWANI vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

250", "10AA", "80-IA", "80-IAB", "80-IB", "80-IC", "80-ID", "80-IE", "Chapter VI-A" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was justified when processing the return under Section 143(1) prior to the amendment, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "253(5)", "10(38)", "143(2)", "142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable

SHRI KISHAN YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.\n2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown\nout at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this\nwhen delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be\ndecided on merits after

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty\nproceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of\nincome or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while\nallowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division\nBench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first\nappeal-orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. In so far as the\nreasoning of non-prosecution before CIT(A) is concerned, Ld. AR narrated\nthe very same physical and financial setbacks/challenges faced by assessee\nas stated by assessee in the applications for condonation of delay. However

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) The delay in filing of Form No. 108 for AY 2016 17 and AY\n2017-18, in ail such cases where the Audit Report for the previous\nyear has been obtained before the filing of return of income and\nhas been furnished subsequent to the filing of the return of income\nbut before the date specified under section

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

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

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .In the ITA No:- 647/Ind/2025 the Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1066202361(1) dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250

ABDE ALI,INDORE vs. ITO , BURHANPUR

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

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience & brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .In the ITA No:- 647/Ind/2025 the Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1066202361(1) dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250

SANJANA CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. AID, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condonation of delay. While acknowledging that the filing of Form 10IC is mandatory, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's bonafide attempt and directed the assessee to file the form within one month, with the CPC opening the window for this purpose.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "253", "250

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty\nproceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of\nincome or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while\nallowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division\nBench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory

KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay. The Tribunal also noted that certain documents were presented by the assessee's representative, which were not filed before the AO or examined by the CIT(A).", "result": "Allowed for statistical purpose", "sections": [ "147", "144", "250", "253", "271(1

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty\nproceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of\nincome or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while\nallowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division\nBench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory

ROSHAN HOSPITAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Roshan Hospital, Dcit/Acit, 7-A-B, Govind Garden, 5(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Raisen Road, Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal-462023 (Appellant /Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aasfr 4278 B Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.04.2023

250 TAXMAN 0016 that amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va. But in the case of the assessee, the payments made after due date prescribed in respective Acts but before the due date

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

250/-\nvi\nPenalty leviable u/s 271AAC(1) being\n10% on tax payable u/s 115BBE\nRs. 26,65,125/-\nvii\nRounded u/s 288A\nRs. 26,65,125/-\nRajesh Kumar Rathore 5\nITA No. 533/Ind/2025\nIn view of the above reasons, I am satisfied that it is a fit\ncase for levy of penalty u/s under section 271AAC(1) of\nthe Income

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is Page 11 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024- AY: 2015-16 duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash

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

condoned the delay of 184 days and adjudicated the issue on merit. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the Asstt.year 2018-19 on 7.3.2019 declaring total taxable income of Rs.2,88,40,270/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

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

PRAVEEN MADHUARRAO SATWASKER,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Praveen Madhukarrao V. The Deputy Satwaskar Commissioner Of Income 1159, Sudama Nagar Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Indore Pan-Ajsps7468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .04.2023

250 TAXMAN 0016 that amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). In order to provide certainty, the revenue has made both the sections i.e. Sec 36(1)(va) and Sec.43B