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

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 the delay should not be condoned as under the Limitation Act, each

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

condone the delay of belated filing of Form no. 10AB u/s 80G(5) of the Act. 6.3 Reading of the above circular makes it clear that the time is extended up till 30-09-2023, whereas the assessee filed belated application on 28-02- 2023. The above circular also clarified that even in case, where the application in Form

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

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

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

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

28,26,089/- and a demand of Rs. 2,31,521/- was created. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned order made u/s 154 of the act” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the act before the Ld. CIT (A) who by the “impugned order" had dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

28-03-2022. The appeal is filed on 04-11-2022 beyond the stipulated time for filing appeal prescribed u/s249(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Thus, there is a delay of 191 days in filing the appeal. Along with the Form 35 the appellant has stated as under- "There is a delay in filing the appeal

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

28-03-2022. The appeal is filed on 04-11-2022 beyond the stipulated time for filing appeal prescribed u/s249(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Thus, there is a delay of 191 days in filing the appeal. Along with the Form 35 the appellant has stated as under- "There is a delay in filing the appeal

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

delay u/s 119(2)(b) to regularize the revised return. The revised return filed by the appellant was not regular return. The revised return has been regularized vide order u/s 119(2)(b) dated 17.01.2008. Therefore, from the date of filing of the revised return till the date of condonation the return remained as non est. The revised return came

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

28,200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 2. That

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

28,200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 2. That

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

28,200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (Tax Effect :10,45,950/-) 2. That

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

28 days. The appeal against the “impugned assessment order” is required to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of order. However the assessee sought condonation of delay in preferring first appeal on ground that the assessee was a commercial pilot and his source of income is salary income which he receives from time to time from various airlines

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

28 days. The appeal against the “impugned assessment order” is required to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of order. However the assessee sought condonation of delay in preferring first appeal on ground that the assessee was a commercial pilot and his source of income is salary income which he receives from time to time from various airlines

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

condonation of delay and submitted that the assesse has not explained reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal and merely shifted the blame to the counsel. Thus Ld. DR has submitted that there is an inordinate delay even after limitation period extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which expired on 30th May 2022 whereas the present appeal

SMT PUSHPLATA CHANDRAWAT,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CPC , BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Pushplata Chandrawat, V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. House No. 34-Bg, Scheme No. 74-C, Vijay Nagar, Indore Pan-Adapc8144L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Anil Kumar Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.03.2023

Section 143(1) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has filed the present appeal on 24th June, 2022 against the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2021 therefore, there is a delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. The Learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the delay

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) of 1769 days. The assessee has not explained sufficient cause for such delay and has taken excuse of filing petition u/s 154 of the Act which was already disposed off by the CPC on 14.5.2019 within the period of 3 months from

RADHAKISHAN,KHATEGAON, DEWAS vs. ITO-2, DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. Hence the appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing. 3.2 The Ld. AR for & on behalf of the assessee has placed on record of this Tribunal a paper book containing pages 1 to 81 & a four pages written submissions in support. Few orders of ITAT are also placed on record

SMT. ARUNA JAIN,MEGHNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Aruna Jain, Ito 512, Near Railway Station, Jhabua बनाम/ Meghnagar, Jhabua Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ainpj0505E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Nishit Doshi, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

28-03-2018, requiring me to file a return of Income for the assessment year 2011-112. In response, I filed a return of income under s. 148 of the Act on 17-10-2018, declaring a total income of Rs.1,56,088/-, over the income tax portal, vide acknowledgment no.: 337935540171018. 4. That, subsequently, the Id. AO completed