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

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

2 might be justified in denying the exemption under section 11 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, which is a public charitable trust for past 30 years which substantially satisfies the conditions for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide

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)

section 271A of the Act was issued to it vide DIN and Letter No. ITBA/PNL/F/17/2025-26 1076484849(1) dated 27.05.2025. It was for this reason that the appeal of the assessee was delayed and it was prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned. In his petition, the assessee cited several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect

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

30,65,156/- only and balance of Rs 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

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

30,41,925/against the returned income at Rs. NIL. 2 That the assessment proceeding completed after regularizing the original notice issued U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 31/03/2021 after issue of notice U/s 148A of IT Act, 1961, dated 02/06/2022 and notice U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 20/07/2022 when the original notice

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

30,41,925/against the returned income at Rs. NIL. 2 That the assessment proceeding completed after regularizing the original notice issued U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 31/03/2021 after issue of notice U/s 148A of IT Act, 1961, dated 02/06/2022 and notice U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 20/07/2022 when the original notice

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

30,41,925/against the returned income at Rs. NIL. 2 That the assessment proceeding completed after regularizing the original notice issued U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 31/03/2021 after issue of notice U/s 148A of IT Act, 1961, dated 02/06/2022 and notice U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 20/07/2022 when the original notice

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

30,41,925/against the returned income at Rs. NIL. 2 That the assessment proceeding completed after regularizing the original notice issued U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 31/03/2021 after issue of notice U/s 148A of IT Act, 1961, dated 02/06/2022 and notice U/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, dated 20/07/2022 when the original notice

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”

condonation of delay in filling the Sri Namiyun Paraswanath Jain Swetamber Manidhari Trust. Jabalpur . Form.No.10B and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Honble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the facts that

I M C OF ITI ,GOTEGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), JABALPURAN

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Imc Of Iti,Gotegaon, Vs. Ito (Exemption) Annex Bldg, Mission Jabalpur, Chowk, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh- Madhya Pradesh- 482001. 482001. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaai2999F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rahul Bardia. Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act.

section 139(4) (e), which require filling of ITR mandatory w.e.f 1.4.2016 i.e. from A.Y. 2016-17 2. That the CIT(appeals) erred in rejecting the claim of refund Rs. 69290/-alleging not having filed the ITR-7 on 14.06.2013 ask acknowledgment No. 299140613004324 affixed on forwarding letter, as per practice, not affixing seal on the ITR page, without confirming

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

SANGEET GUPTA,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Sangeeta Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ludhati, Itama, Maihar, Satna Ward-1, Satna Pan:Bdipg5378M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law, As Has Been Initiated By Jao Instead Of Faceless. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Case, The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering The Case As Bad In Law On Account Of Not Giving Sufficient Time Of 30 Days To Assessee To Reply The Notice Under Section 148A(B). 3. On The Fact & Circumstance Of The Case, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Dismissing The Appeal In Liming Without Condoning The Delay Even When There Exist Reason & Sufficient Cause Behind The Delay So Caused Was Beyond The Control Of The Appellant. 4. The Id. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On The Fact Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of 21,23,97,680/- Credited In The Bank Account Of The Assessee In Cash Form Without Considering The Fact That Assessee Duly Uploaded The Audit Report On E-Portal, Confirming The Source Of Cash. Further Id. Cit (A) Also Erred In Not Considering The Reply Filed In The Appeal Proceeding, As Well As In The Assessment Proceeding By Assessee, To Dismiss The Appeal Being Filed Beyond Allowable Time Having Sufficient Cause.

30 days to assessee to reply the notice under section 148A(b). 3. On the fact and circumstance of the case, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on the fact of the case in dismissing the appeal in liming without condoning the delay even when there exist reason and sufficient cause behind the delay

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has I.T.A. No.138/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2011-12 2 requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,KOTMA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE,KATNI, KATNI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) dated 04/12/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The appeal was heard on 27/05/2022 on the aspect of condonation of delay; the appeal being time barred by 50 days. Subsequently, vide order dated 02/06/2022, the delay was condoned in view of the decision by the Apex Court

RAJENDRA SAHU,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, , KATNI

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

delay in the filing of the appeal was condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that as per the information available on the insight portal, the assessee had purchased an immovable property during the relevant period for Rs. 92,44,000/- from Sh. Sanjeev Prabhakar in the name of Sh. Amarnath Pyasi

BIRLA CABLE LIMITED,REWA vs. ACIT,CPC-TDS, BHOPAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 200A of the Act. The CPC has passed order against the assessee under s. 200A of the Act for the Quarters 3 and 4 with regard to TDS and demands for Rs. 60,840/- and Rs.22,890/-, including interest at Rs. 6,516/- and 448/-, raised for the said two Quarters respectively. Aggrieved with the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

30,28,821, brought to assessment vide order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 13/11/2014. The same was subject to revision. The Assessing Officer (AO) had, in the view of the Administrative Commissioner, failed to examine the Vinod Kumar Chate (Asst. Yr. 2012-13) applicability of section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee

SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

30,28,821, brought to assessment vide order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 13/11/2014. The same was subject to revision. The Assessing Officer (AO) had, in the view of the Administrative Commissioner, failed to examine the Vinod Kumar Chate (Asst. Yr. 2012-13) applicability of section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee

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