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

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

12-3-2021 is quashed and aside. The impugned order of rectification under section 154 of the Act dated 25-1-2019 is also quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the respondent is allowed." The issue before us being identical to that as dealt with by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High

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

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

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

2,12,429/- 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

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

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

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

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 & 12

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.

2. That the CIT (Exemp) erred in rejecting the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB for permanent registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) on 23.09.2024 instead of extended period up to 30/06/2024 thus belatedly, being procedural mistake and the trust meets substantive conditions and compliances of registration u/s 12AB. 3. That the Id. CIT (Exemp) erred

SHRI SAJJAN SINGH SHIKSHA SAMITI,REWA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXAMPTION), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

12(2) and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ hereinafter) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bhopal (‘CIT(E)’ for short) dated 08.7.2020. 2. The facts of the case, to the extent relevant, are that the assessee, a Society registered under section 12A of the Act, filed its’ return of income for the relevant assessment year

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

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-

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the Income

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the Income

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)

2. The facts of the case are that upon noticing that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and receiving information that the assessee had made deposits during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 63,98,210/-, the ld. AO issued notices under section 148A of the Income