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

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 to Rs 37,209.75. I.T.A. No.186/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2020-21 7 This certificate is issued at the specific request of the Trust, solely for the purpose of submission before

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)

23,784/- as against shown in the return of income filed at Rs. 34,53,548 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard

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)

23,784/- as against shown in the return of income filed at Rs. 34,53,548 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard

JILA SAHAKARI BANK MARYDIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(2),

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 231/Jab/2016 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2012-13   Jila Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sadan, Wright Town, Vs Ward 1(2), Jabalpur (Mp) Jabalpur Pan : Aaajj 0118 J / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 9Th June 2016 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito/Ward/1(3)/Jbp/079/2015-16, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 144/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 27.03.2015 Framed By The Ito, Ward 1(2), Jabalpur.

23, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee had a sufficient cause which prevented it from filing the appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, in the interests of justice, condone the delay of 17 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. Jila Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs. ITO AY : 2012-13 3. Briefly stated facts, as culled

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.

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 so caused was beyond the control of the appellant

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

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”

23- 07-2021. 3. Aggrieved by the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, the Assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A).Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the AO and submissions of the assessee but has rejected the request for condonation of delay in filling the Sri Namiyun Paraswanath Jain Swetamber

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.

23 allowing use of funds by the Settlors/trustees- without referring clause No. 19,20, 21 and 22 of the trust deed. 3. The trust is irrevocable- not correct-without referring irrevocable clause No. 19 of the trust deed. 1 Athitheyam Nyas 4. The trust running hotel on commercial basis and not a Dharmashala for charitable purpose-without referring trust Registration

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.

1. That the CIT(appeals) erred in rejecting the claim of refund of Rs. 69290/- on the basis of alleged non-filling of ITR whereas the assesse claiming exempt income u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) also being substantially financed by the Govt., without referring section 139(4) (e), which require filling of ITR mandatory w.e.f 1.4.2016 i.e. from

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

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

23 acres of land during the relevant previous year for a total of consideration of Rs.115 lacs. As no capital gain stood returned by him u/s. 139, notice u/s. 148(1) was issued and capital gains, returned u/s. 148(1) at Rs. 30,28,821, brought to assessment vide order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 13/11/2014. The same

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

23 acres of land during the relevant previous year for a total of consideration of Rs.115 lacs. As no capital gain stood returned by him u/s. 139, notice u/s. 148(1) was issued and capital gains, returned u/s. 148(1) at Rs. 30,28,821, brought to assessment vide order u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 13/11/2014. The same