SHRI NAMIYUN PARSWANATH JAIN, SWETAMBER MANIDHARI TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

section 11 can not be denied, being merely procedural defect which is rectifiable. Also relied on M.P. High Court (1998)230 ITR 0714- filling of audit report being directory and can be filed up to assessment stage. 3) That the commissioner appeals faceless erred in confirming order of CIT(exemption) u/s 119(2) dated 11.09.2020 denying condonation of delay

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied for allowing benefit of Sec. 11 of IT Act, 1961, is not justified. 7 That the confirmation of addition at Rs.34,01,925/- without adjudicating the documents and explanation available on portal filed during the year under consider is arbitrary and bad in law. 8. That

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied for allowing benefit of Sec. 11 of IT Act, 1961, is not justified. 7 That the confirmation of addition at Rs.34,01,925/- without adjudicating the documents and explanation available on portal filed during the year under consider is arbitrary and bad in law. 8. That

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied for allowing benefit of Sec. 11 of IT Act, 1961, is not justified. 7 That the confirmation of addition at Rs.34,01,925/- without adjudicating the documents and explanation available on portal filed during the year under consider is arbitrary and bad in law. 8. That

SHARDA BAL KALYAN SAMITI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condoning delay is erroneous and band ion law. 6 That the benefit denied for allowing benefit of Sec. 11 of IT Act, 1961, is not justified. 7 That the confirmation of addition at Rs.34,01,925/- without adjudicating the documents and explanation available on portal filed during the year under consider is arbitrary and bad in law. 8. That

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delayed by 11 days. The assessee has filed a condonation petition and sworn an affidavit, in which it has been submitted that he resides at a small place (Seoni) in Madhya Pradesh and is engaged in the business of trading of agricultural produce. The case had been reopened under section

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delayed by 11 days. The assessee has filed a condonation petition and sworn an affidavit, in which it has been submitted that he resides at a small place (Seoni) in Madhya Pradesh and is engaged in the business of trading of agricultural produce. The case had been reopened under section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN- SITU), CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. MANISH KUMAR SAROGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 294 days in filing the C.O. is condoned. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the issue of validity of the Assessment Order on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee has been decided in Assessees’ own case in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.15 to 20/JAB/2019 (Naresh

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SARAOGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 294 days in filing the C.O. is condoned. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the issue of validity of the Assessment Order on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee has been decided in Assessees’ own case in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.15 to 20/JAB/2019 (Naresh

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay explained is not falling within the provisions of section 273B of ITA 1961. I therefore hold that appellant has failed to meet the tests laid down in IT Act, 1961 and Ld.JAO has rightly imposed penalty. Dismissed also as the Hon'ble Cochin ITAT in the case of M/s. Paravur Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs ITO in ITA No.105/Coch/2023

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condoned. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the FIR that have been filed by the assessee in support of its contention was dated 1.12.2019 but the appeal as per Form No. 35 was to be filed by December, 2024. Therefore, the FIR did not explain the delay in the filing appeal since it reported the incident of more than five

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condoned. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the FIR that have been filed by the assessee in support of its contention was dated 1.12.2019 but the appeal as per Form No. 35 was to be filed by December, 2024. Therefore, the FIR did not explain the delay in the filing appeal since it reported the incident of more than five

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condoned. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the FIR that have been filed by the assessee in support of its contention was dated 1.12.2019 but the appeal as per Form No. 35 was to be filed by December, 2024. Therefore, the FIR did not explain the delay in the filing appeal since it reported the incident of more than five

SEHKARI VIPDAN SAMITI MARYADIT,NARSINGHPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condoned. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the FIR that have been filed by the assessee in support of its contention was dated 1.12.2019 but the appeal as per Form No. 35 was to be filed by December, 2024. Therefore, the FIR did not explain the delay in the filing appeal since it reported the incident of more than five

SAURABH JAIN,SAGAR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE,, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11, Karrapur Circle- Sagar Sagar. Sagar PAN:ASDPJ3438L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Respondent by Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr.D.R. O R D E R (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.42/JBP/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 against impugned appellate order dated 22/08/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067876953(1) of Commissioner of Income

SHRI KAMLA JANHITYA SAMITI,SATNA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 03/03/2021, refusing to condone the delay in filing of Form-10, i.e., for availing exemption u/ss. 11

LATE SMT SAMPAT BAI JAIN SMRITI SAMITI RUPESH JAIN ABHINAV X RAY, M G ROAD SATNA,SATNA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -EXEMPTION WARD, JABALPUR(M.P), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 15/03/2022, refusing to condone the delay in filing of Form-10, i.e., for availing exemption u/ss. 11

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER , CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE ,JABALPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-2, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence are clubbed, heard and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the ITA No.4/JAB/2023 for the A.Y.2013-14(Quarter-4) as a lead case and the facts narrated. The assessee has raised the following grounds