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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act\nmay also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in\nthis case, the CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 Petitioners failed to make out a\nstrong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach,\nmay adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal\napproach does not mean that

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act\nmay also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this\ncase, the CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 Petitioners failed to make out a\nstrong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach,\nmay adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal\napproach does not mean that

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

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

condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate- Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 sec 106." 9. The meaning to be assigned to the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Section

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. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

AKSHAY ACADEMY,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

9. The assessee claims that it is entitled to benefit of exemption on the basis of 1stProviso to section 12A(2). For ready reference, the provision of section 12A(2) as existing at the relevant time, is re-produced below: “12A(2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the provisions

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

9. Condonation of delay - The condonation of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal needs to be decided. In this case, it is seen from the records that the date of assessment order is 28-03-2022 and the said order has been duly served upon on the appellant on 28-03-2022. The appeal is filed

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

9. Condonation of delay - The condonation of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal needs to be decided. In this case, it is seen from the records that the date of assessment order is 28-03-2022 and the said order has been duly served upon on the appellant on 28-03-2022. The appeal is filed

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

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

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

section 70 of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the condonation of delay in filing the appeal as requested to him. ” 2. At the outset, we note that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine being barred by limitation. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee

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

CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10B FOR\nYEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19\nCIRCULAR NO. 10 (F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-1), DATED 22-5-2019\nUnder the provisions of section 12A of Income-tax Act, 1961\n(hereafter 'Act) where the total income of a trust on institution as\ncomputed under the Act without giving effect to the provisions

M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

section 154 filed before AO PB No 9-10 seeking rectification of CPC order S Kalindi Palace 2. Being aggrieved with the said order the appellant is in appeal before your Honour and have taken various grounds: For sake of convenience the issue involved may be summed up as under: 2.1 That the CIT (A) has erred

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