GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWERC vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

2 SCC 387\nwherein the guiding principles for condonation of delay were laid down. He\nsubmitted that the assessee's present case satisfies the principles set out by\nHon'ble Supreme Court. He also referred a recent judgement of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 21.03.2025 titled Inder Singh Vs. The State of\nMadhya Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Civil

GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWER vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

2 SCC 387\nwherein the guiding principles for condonation of delay were laid down. He\nsubmitted that the assessee's present case satisfies the principles set out by\nHon'ble Supreme Court. He also referred a recent judgement of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 21.03.2025 titled Inder Singh Vs. The State of\nMadhya Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Civil

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

Appeal is dismissed

section 253(5) of the Act which empowers the\nITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient\ncause" for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. We are also conscious of\nthe landmark judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land\nAcquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

delayed return, the same cannot be\ncalled to be a non-est return in law.\n8. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of\nthe orders of the lower authorities, we find that undisputedly the\nreturn was not filed by the assessee within the time prescribed\nunder section 148 of the Act. But for that reason

SAQUIB AHMED,PIPARIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

253", "263", "143(3)", "143(2)", "142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is condonable

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

2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone 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

condone the delay of the appeal of the Revenue due to misleading statement given before the Hon’ble Court. In the present case, the contention of the assessee is that the delay occurred due to negligence of the advocate. Hon'ble’ Supreme Court in the case of Vedabi alias Vijayantbai Patil vs. Shantaram Patil (2002) 253 ITR 798(SC) held

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 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

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 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2

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", "246A", "115BAA", "139(1)", "119(2

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

delay in filing it can be condoned. Given that the audit report was eventually filed and the assessee is a charitable trust, the Tribunal held that the substantive benefit of the report should not be denied due to a procedural lapse on the part of the auditor/counsel.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "253", "250", "154", "246A", "11", "12A", "12AA

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

delay was condoned.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "271AAC(1)", "115BBE", "69", "147", "246A", "249(2)", "249(3)", "274(2)" ], "issues

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

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condones delay and accordingly left\nit to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by\nassessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the\nassessee is found to have a “sufficient cause" for delay in filing present\nappeals. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

section 253(5) and the Page 2 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

section 253(5) and the Page 2 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Vaishali Developers & Income-Tax Officer, Builders, 1(2), बनाम/ 240, M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aacfv7638P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

2,425 days which is highly inordinate. The law mandates filing of appeal within a prescribed period only and even one day delay is objectionable. Ld. DR submitted that a small delay of few days or even few months can be condoned on sufficient cause being shown but the revenue is seriously against condonation of delay of several years-months

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

delay could not be condoned.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "253", "143(3)", "270A", "274", "270AA", "270AA(1)", "270AA(2)", "156", "246A