DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

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

31,24,799/- as Income is Arbitrary and Unjust The entire cash deposit has been wrongly treated as income under section 69A. The AO failed to consider the nature of business, source of receipts, debit entries, withdrawals, and cash flow cycle. Even under presumptive taxation u/s 44AD, only 8% of gross turnover can be considered as profit. It is humbly

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”

1. That the commissioner Appeals faceless erred in not condoning the delay in filling 10B audit report up loaded belatedly by C.A. on 26.02.2020, whereas it was signed by C.A. on 20.06.2018 and the assesse dully added C. A for up loading Sri Namiyun Paraswanath Jain Swetamber Manidhari Trust. Jabalpur . on 03.08.2018, ITR was filed on 06.08.2018, thus the audit

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

URMILA KURARIYA (L/H OF LATE SHRI GANGA PRASAD KURARIYA),JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal 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 is an individual. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29/03/2016. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order u/s 144 read with section

GIRISH KURARIYA,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal 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 his return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,53,550/-. The Assessing Officer processed the return filed by the assessee and passed the assessment order u/s 147 read with section

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 of the Act. 2. The ld. CIT (Exemptions) has, in exercise of its power u/s. 119(2)(b), refused to condone the delay inasmuch as the same

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 of the Act. 2. The ld. CIT (Exemption) has in exercise of its power u/s. 119(2)(b), refused to condone the delay inasmuch as the same