SPARSH ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS & CONSULTANTS,REWA vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, REWA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

condone such delay. Applying the said principle, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent dated 12-3- 2021 is quashed and aside. The impugned order of rectification under section

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

12,429/- representing surplus out of 15% of Rs 19,91,638/- also results in nil income chargeable to tax. 4. Non-Capital Expenditure of Rs 1,13,23,157/- if clubbed with 15% of total receipts of Rs 1,32,77,585.25 comes to Rs 1,33,14,795/-, henceforth excess of income over expenditure comes

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

SAFARI SALES AND SERVICES,JABALPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SATNA

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

12,120 after making additions under section 69A.", "held": "The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as per section 249(3) of the Act. It was also noted that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity by the Assessing Officer.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144B

ATHITHEYAM NYAS,ANUPPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) BHOPAL,, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-Na Athitheyam Nyas, Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax C/O Kalyan Sewa Ashram, Amraknatk (Exemption), Bhopal Dt-Anuppur, M.P. 484886 Pan:Aakta1783A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.C. Bardia & Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.As. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Bhopal Wherein The Ld. Cit (Exemption) Has Rejected The Application Filed By The Assessee In Form No. 10Ab For Registration Under Section 12B Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That Without Considering The Reply E Filed/Mailed Dated 20.03.2024, The Cit(Exemp) Erred In Cancelling The Provisional Registration Granted On 28.11.2023 & Rejecting 10Ab Form For Permanent Registration Vide Order Dated 21.03.2025 Due To Non-Submission Of Reply To Notice Dated 13.03.2025 Up To 18.03.2025 Alleging: - 1. Failure To Explain The Reason For Delay In Filling Form 10Ab Without Considering Fresh/Corrected 10Ab Form Filed On 18.03.2025 U/S 12A(Ac)(1)(Vi)(B) Under New Law. 2. Not Justifying Dissolution Clause No. 23 Allowing Use Of Funds By The Settlors/Trustees- Without Referring Clause No. 19,20, 21 & 22 Of The Trust Deed. 3. The Trust Is Irrevocable- Not Correct-Without Referring Irrevocable Clause No. 19 Of The Trust Deed.

delay of 84 days ought to have been condoned as provided under the proviso to section 12(A)(vi). The assessee

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

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeals for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeals for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeals for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals, pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeals for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation

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)

section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved in all these cases is similar and they are inter-related as they were all heard together, the same are being taken up together for disposal for the sake convenience. The grounds of appeal

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)

section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved in all these cases is similar and they are inter-related as they were all heard together, the same are being taken up together for disposal for the sake convenience. The grounds of appeal

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)

section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved in all these cases is similar and they are inter-related as they were all heard together, the same are being taken up together for disposal for the sake convenience. The grounds of appeal

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)

section 270A of the Income Tax Act and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. As the issues involved in all these cases is similar and they are inter-related as they were all heard together, the same are being taken up together for disposal for the sake convenience. The grounds of appeal

PRABHAT SUPA,CHHATARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , CHHATARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

12, Mohalla Thakur Chhatarpur Bab, Village- Satai, Bajawar, Chhaterpur. PAN:CYWPS6710H (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.138/JBP/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 21/06/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053839700

BALA PRASAD PATEL ,CHHATARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHHATARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

12, Mohalla Thakur Chhatarpur Bab, Village Satai, Bajawar, Chhatarpur. PAN:BCOPP4664A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Respondent by Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. D.R. 1 O R D E R (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.139/JBP/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 08/03/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-

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 & 12