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

1), both dated 17.08.2023 and\npassed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal\n[“CIT(E)"] by which the assessee's applications for grant of final registration\nu/s 12AB & final approval u/s 80G of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act"] have\nbeen rejected. The assessee has raised grounds as mentioned in Appeal\nMemos (Form No. 36).\nDelay in appeals

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

1), both dated 17.08.2023 and\npassed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal\n[“CIT(E)"] by which the assessee's applications for grant of final registration\nu/s 12AB & final approval u/s 80G of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act"] have\nbeen rejected. The assessee has raised grounds as mentioned in Appeal\nMemos (Form No. 36).\nDelay in appeals

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

9 SCC 94.\n\n11. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the\ninterpretation of the words 'sufficient cause' should be such that it is\nconstrued liberally. By referring to the decision in State of West Bengal v\nAdministrator, Howrah Municipality,(1972) 1 SCC 366, the respondent\ncontended that a liberal interpretation should specially

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

vi)\nLakshminirman\nBangalore (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.\nCIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 144/234 Taxman\n275 (Kar.)\n(vii)\nSree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper\nPrimary School v. UOI [2017] 77 taxmann.com\n244/245 Taxman 312/392 ITR 457 (Ker.)\n(viii)\nDr. Amrit Lal Mangal v. Union of India [2015] 62\ntaxmann.com 310/235 Taxman 410 (Punj. &\nHar.)\n10. The Id. DR submitted that

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

9. It is clear from the above section that for claiming deduction under Chapter VIA under the head, \"Deductions to be made in computing total income\", which covers section 80P also, the assessee has to file return of income. However, the assessee did not file return of income at all and therefore the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.80P

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

Appeal is dismissed

condonation of several years as has happened in\npresent cases.\n(ii)\nReferring to Para 1 of affidavit of counsel, he submitted that the Counsel is\nstating to be in professional practice for last 35 years which shows that the\ncounsel is not a novice, he is a well experience professional. Referring to Ld.\nAR's assertion, he submitted that

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

vi) shall make an application in the prescribed form and manner to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, for grant of approval,- (i) XXX (ii) XXX (iii) Where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.3,81,960/-, which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, excessive, arbitrary and bad-in-law. 2a). That, the learned

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

9", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) with a delay of 349 days. The assessee claimed that the delay was due to an inadvertent oversight of an e-mail communication regarding the CIT(A)'s order. The Assessing Officer had disallowed a deduction under Section 80P due to the return of income

M/S LAURELS SCHOOL AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION P.LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Laurels School & V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Management Institutions Pvt. Ltd. 7, Press Complex, A.B. Road, Behind Dainik Bhaskar Press, Indore. Pan-Aaacl4970D (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: 06.04.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 4. The limitation for filing the appeal in the present case was expired in the month of February, 2022 and the assessee has filed the present appeal on 25th May, 2022 but within the period of 90 as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court being extension of limitation for the cases where

NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM KARMCHARI KALYAN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,UJJAIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Nagar Palika Nigam Cpc, Bangaluru / Karmchari Kalyan Sakh Cit, Nfac, Delhi Sahakari Sanstha बनाम/ Maryadit, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactn7778G Assessee By Ms. Sonam Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. Page 3 of 9 Nagar Palika Nigam Karmchari Kalyan Sakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Ujjain ITA No. 198/Ind/2024 – AY 2019-20 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is a society of employees of local body. It filed return of income of relevant AY 2019-20 belatedly

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

1 of affidavit of counsel, he submitted that the Counsel is stating to be in professional practice for last 35 years Page 7 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 which shows that the counsel is not a novice, he is a well experience professional. Referring to Ld. AR’s assertion, he submitted

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

1 of affidavit of counsel, he submitted that the Counsel is stating to be in professional practice for last 35 years Page 7 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 which shows that the counsel is not a novice, he is a well experience professional. Referring to Ld. AR’s assertion, he submitted

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the Financial Assistance for industrial development and infrastructure. It declared total loss at Rs.1,55,62,351/- in the return filed on 30.09.2015. The case was selected for limited

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

M/S HOPE TEXTILES LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condonation of delay in depositing the balance amount, thereafter the application remained pending before CBDT due to procedural steps. Invariably CBDT sought response of department to this application which was also delayed and in any event the delay in the matter due to pendency of application before CBDT could not be said to be delay on the part the appellant

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

Section (2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and he rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed all the three appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that primarily Ground No. 2 & 3 may please be taken which pertains to passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A) by not condoning the delay