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

143(1). Requirement to file Form 10B along with return of income as stated above is a statutory requirement mandated by the I.T. Act. CBDT vide circulars issued from time to time had instructed that if there is delay in filing of such Form, the same should be got condoned by the concerned jurisdictional Commissioner of Income

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

delay should be condoned and appeal may please be considered on merits. 3. That the learned CIT Appeal as well as Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of the case in making / confirming Penalty of Rs.50000/-. The appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in not making compliance of notice u/s 143(2

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

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

delay should be condoned and appeal may please be considered on merits. 3. That the learned CIT Appeal as well as Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of the case in making / confirming Penalty of Rs.50000/-. The appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in not making compliance of notice u/s 143(2

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

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

condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the respondent is allowed. 6. The respondent is now directed to process the return in accordance with law. It is noticed that no assessment is framed and only an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued. No scrutiny could be carried out by the respondent since the audit report

NAGENDRA PRATAP SINGH,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, SINGRAULI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Nagendra Pratap Singh V. Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S. Prem Kanta Indane, Itd, Singrauli-486788 Old Dudhichua Road, Singrauli- 486788. Tan/Pan:Asaps8528D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Cit(Dr-1) Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

2. At the time of hearing of appeal none was present on behalf of the assessee. It is noted that the appeal is barred by limitation for 10 days as reported by the Registry. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. It is stated by the assessee that he was unaware

KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,REWA vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay petition that had been filed. 7. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. While the order of the ld. AO is extremely cryptic, perusal of the condonation petition filed by the assessee shows that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued under section 143(2

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

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

section 143(2) is also invalid as jurisdiction of appellant is with ITO Ward 1(2), Jabalpur whereas it was issued by ITO 2(1), Thane and hence assessment may kindly be quashed. 9. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. All these appeals

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

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

section 143(2) is also invalid as jurisdiction of appellant is with ITO Ward 1(2), Jabalpur whereas it was issued by ITO 2(1), Thane and hence assessment may kindly be quashed. 9. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. All these appeals

JABALPUR ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEXES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU & DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

2 A.Y. 2023-24 Jabalpur Entertainment Complexes P. Ltd. intimation order under section 143(1) by not allowing the benefit of section 115BAA, solely on the ground that Form 10-IB was filed instead of Form 10-IC. It was submitted that the provisions of section 143(1) were quite clear in their requirement, that prior to the passing

JAIN WARE HOUSE,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

143(2) along with a show cause notice, the assessee did not make effective compliance to the queries raised by him. He pointed out that there was information with him that the assessee had received Rs.21,24,000/- as rent on which tax was deducted under section 194IB of the Income Tax Act and there was also information that

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”

2) dated 11.09.2020 denying condonation of delay being more than 365 days as against the due date of 31.10.2018, whereas it was claimed that delay be computed u/s 139 as per CBDT circular 02/2020 dt 3.1.2020 w.e.f due date being 31 March of every asstt. year, I e. For the A.Y. 2018-19- 31.03.2019 and thus 10B form filed

GAURAV SINGH,SATNA vs. ITO-WARD SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

Section 143(3) and 250 of the Income tax Act 1961. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the decision of the CIT(A) in denial of relief of foreign Tax Credit as the Form.No.67 was not filed before due date of filling of return of income U/sec139(1) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing

SHREE JEE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXCEMPTION, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 27/03/2019 declaring total income at nil. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143 read with sections 143(3A) & 143

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, REWA, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

143(2) and 142(1). ITA Nos. 54&56 /Jab/2021(AY 2009-10) Avnish Kumar Gupta v. ITO Be that as it may, the appeal was filed, though belatedly (by 37 days), before the first appellate authority on the assessee becoming aware of an assessment in his case having been made. The delay was condoned, and considering the fact

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

143(2) and 142(1). ITA Nos. 54&56 /Jab/2021(AY 2009-10) Avnish Kumar Gupta v. ITO Be that as it may, the appeal was filed, though belatedly (by 37 days), before the first appellate authority on the assessee becoming aware of an assessment in his case having been made. The delay was condoned, and considering the fact

RAVIKANT KHARE,TIKAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , TIKAMGARH

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2 on 25/12/2018 under section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.8,21,120/- by making addition of Rs.2,15,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.4,26,000/- on account of unexplained money

UTTAM KRISHNANI,REWA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KATNI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2 Rs.20,95,110/-. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 05/12/2019 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.20,95,110/-. The Assessing Officer passed rectification order u/s 154 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 24/11/2022 and levied the tax @77.25% instead of 30% as a normal rate

MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,KATNI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER WARD-1, KATNI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2 application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, filed