JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1065879845(1) dated 20.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. Page 1 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

ILIYAS,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiiliyas, Nfac, बनाम/ 56, Khargone Road Bedia, Delhi Vs. Khargone

condone the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of Assessment Order bearing Number :- ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053047716(1) dated 22.05.2023 the assessee’s total income was determined/computed at Rs.33,29,641/- in terms of Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The aforesaid assessment order

HIRAMANI AJIT KUMAR JAIN,RATLAM vs. ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Hiramani Ajit Kumar Jain, Income Tax Officer-1, 77, Tashakand Marg, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agcph3330A Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2024 O R D E R

delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A) 2 Hyderabad is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law and also in breach of principle of natural justice. 1.1 That the action of the ADDL/JCIT(A) 2 Hyderabad

RITESH SAXENA,INDORE vs. ITO-2(5), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ritesh Saxena, Income-Tax Officer, T-301, Shalimar Palms, 2(5), Piplyahana, Bhopal बनाम/ Bicholi Mardana, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Auxpx7459J Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024

271F but not in the impugned matter before CIT(A). Then, Ld. AR carried us to Paper-Book to demonstrate various e-mails/ communications exchanged upto 01.01.2024 between assessee and samadhan (grievance cell) of Income-Department/CBDT for re-institution of appeal erroneously dismissed. But, however, even after a serious effort, the assessee’s first-appeal dismissed by impugned order

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

271F. Similarly, in case of failure to file return by charitable society under section 139 (4A) penalty has been prescribed under section 272A (2)(e). On a plain reading of the relevant provisions, in our opinion, failure to file the return under section 139(4A) cannot be interpreted to mean that income cannot to be computed in the case

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause

SANJAY SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-1(1), INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Sanjay Sharma, National E-Assessment बनाम/ 41, Kelod Kartal, Centre, Assessment Unit, Vs. Khandwa Road, Income Tax Department, Indore. Nfac,Delhi (Pan: Effps8527L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sanjay Sharma, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 41, Kelod Kartal, 1(1), Vs. Khandwa Road, Indore. Indore. (Pan: Effps8527L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

271F of the Act. Since these appeals are inter-related, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Registry has informed that both of these appeals are filed after a delay of 53 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported

SANJAY SHARMA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Sanjay Sharma, National E-Assessment बनाम/ 41, Kelod Kartal, Centre, Assessment Unit, Vs. Khandwa Road, Income Tax Department, Indore. Nfac,Delhi (Pan: Effps8527L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sanjay Sharma, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 41, Kelod Kartal, 1(1), Vs. Khandwa Road, Indore. Indore. (Pan: Effps8527L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

271F of the Act. Since these appeals are inter-related, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Registry has informed that both of these appeals are filed after a delay of 53 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported

SHRI GUPTNATH BAL SHIKSHAN SAMITI MACHALPUR,MACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nterms mentioned above

condoned the delay of filing of form 10B vide his order dated\n06.08.2024. Therefore, in our considered opinion, on this issue there\nshould not be any denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. However,\nwith regards to delay in filing of ROI, section 12A(1)(ba) of the\nAct stipulates that to claim exemption

M/S BAGORA DEVELOPERS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT OSD , INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bagora Developers Pvt. Acit- Ltd. Indore 34, Revenue Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecb6424E Assessee By Shri Siddharth Mahajan & Ashok Mahajan, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2024

condonation of delay and careful perused the relevant material on record. The impugned order was passed by the CIT(A) on 10.02.2020 and limitation for filing the appeal expired on 10.04.2020. Thus, the limitation for filing the appeal was expiring during the Covid-19 pandemic and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is now covered by the judgment