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

condonation under the existing provisions of the Act. The CCslT/DGsIT shall examine the following while deciding such applications – (i) the delay in furnishing the return of income within the due date under sub·section (I) of section 139 of the Act was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee with appropriate documentary evidence/s; (ii) where delay

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) Page 2 of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed Page 3 of 32 of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly the appeal filed by the assesse

M/S INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SEHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5 (1) , INDORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 80P under chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as is admissible deduction to a co-operative society. The addition therefore made by the AO is totally wrong and without considering the facts of the case. 4. That the appellant craves to leave, add, alter or amend any of the ground at or before hearing.” M/s. Indore

SHREE RAJENDRA SURI SAH SAKH SANTHA MYD,RAJGARH, DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR, DHAR

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

80P of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.2,32,096/- to the total income of the appellant on account of disallowance of annual