SARSWATI BAL KALYAN SAMITI,WAIDHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Sarswati Bal Kalyan V. Income Tax Officer, Samiti Mandla Ward, Mandla Waidhan Distt – Singrauli (Mp)- Central Revenue Annexe 486886. Building, Jabalpur- 482001. Pan:Aadas7349Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. Hemant S. Modh, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura , Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

1 and 2 herein original defendants appellants before the High Court. While condoning the delay, the High Court has observed as under: In these circumstances, when there are certain questions, which require a debate in the second appeal, it is not necessary that this matter be rejected at this stage, without inviting a decision on merits. If the delay

MANGALAYATAN UNIVERSITY,MANDLA ROAD, NEAR SHARDA DEVI MANDIR, RICHAI BAREL vs. LD. CIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, ITA No. 46/JAB/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bhopal rejecting the application for renewal of provisional registration under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is arbitrarily misconceived, fallacious and illegal which must be quashed with directions to grant the as sought

MANGALAYATAN UNIVERSITY,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXCEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, ITA No. 46/JAB/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bhopal rejecting the application for renewal of provisional registration under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is arbitrarily misconceived, fallacious and illegal which must be quashed with directions to grant the as sought

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

Section 11 of the Act. However, nowhere in the appellate order the ld. CIT(A) disputed the fact that assessee was not registered u/s.12A of the Act. The registration certificate granted by the department on 2.9.2014 is on record. Further the uploading of Form-10B which is a audit report u/s.12A(b) of the Act, proves that the mistake committed

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

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)

5. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without issuing any notice under section 148 as the notice issued under section 148 was not issued to anybody as apparent from the portal. 6. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that notice issued under

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)

5. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without issuing any notice under section 148 as the notice issued under section 148 was not issued to anybody as apparent from the portal. 6. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that notice issued under

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

5 Thus, provisions of section 2738 provides that no penalty shall be imposable on person or assessee, as case may be, referred to in said provisions, if it proves that there is a reasonable cause for said failure. Since the provisions of section 273B covers the provisions of section 271B, if assessee or person explains reasons for not getting

KAMDHENU SHIKSHA SEWA SAMITI,KATNI vs. CIT- EXCEMPTION , BHOPAL

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoning delay of applications filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and clause (iii) of first proviso to section 10(23C) of the Act but no such relaxation had been granted to applications which have been filed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5

KAMDHENU SHIKSHA SEWA SAMITI,KATNI vs. CIT-EXCEMPTION, , BHOPAL

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoning delay of applications filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and clause (iii) of first proviso to section 10(23C) of the Act but no such relaxation had been granted to applications which have been filed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5

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)

5. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is seen that in the instant case, the assessee had inadvertently filed Form 10-IB before the due date of filing of the return, which is the prescribed form for availing the concessional rate of tax for manufacturing companies under section 115 BA, whereas it ought

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”, Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 has reiterated the principle for granting condonation of delay by observing as under: - “13. It is very elementary and well understood that courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in dealing with the applications for condonation

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

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts for the same issue, two different assessment orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Considering the totality

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

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts for the same issue, two different assessment orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Considering the totality

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

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts for the same issue, two different assessment orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Considering the totality

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

condoning the delay. We find that the earlier order was passed ex parte to the assessee. However, both the assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts for the same issue, two different assessment orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Considering the totality

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

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

5. Prayer for Condonation of Errors and Relief on Merits in Interest of Justice The penalty is based on an addition which itself was challenged. The appellant made written submissions (albeit late), and attempted to explain the nature of deposits and his commission business. Even assuming the income was assessable, the profit element cannot be the entire gross deposit

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

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

5. Prayer for Condonation of Errors and Relief on Merits in Interest of Justice The penalty is based on an addition which itself was challenged. The appellant made written submissions (albeit late), and attempted to explain the nature of deposits and his commission business. Even assuming the income was assessable, the profit element cannot be the entire gross deposit