SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order as passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 by invoking

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

condone the delay in filing application in Form No.10AB u/s 80G(5) of the Act. We note that Co-ordinate Bench of Jodhpur in the case of Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga Charitable Trust vs. CIT(Exemption) in Page 11 of 24 Aatma Prakash Mental Health Foundation, Indore. ITA No. 278/JODH/2023 dated 10.11.2023 dealt with the issue of clause (iii) 3rd proviso

SAQUIB AHMED,PIPARIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain calculation deductions under chapter\nVI-A, etc. The Ld. AO in the aforesaid assessment order held\nthat:-\n//\nIn view of the submission made by the assessee and after\nconsidering the totality of facts and circumstances of the\ncase, the return income of the assessee is accepted”. That the\naforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain of Rs.21,68,388/- to be taxed separately\n2.12 That the aforesaid assessment order of Ld. A.O bears\nNo.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1031627237(1) and is dated\n20.03.2021 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned\nassessment order\".\n2.13 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal before Ld.\nCIT(A) who by “impugned order

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. PCIT (1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

capital gains and unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts). (i) one against order passed by the first appellate authority u/s 250(6) of the Act 61 dated 30th November, 2023 (filed on 12th December, 2023) being ITA No 518/Indore/ 2023, (which has been heard and shall be disposed off vide a separate order). AND (ii) the another one against

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. The case revolves around the valuation of property for capital gains tax, specifically the application

SHRI KISHAN YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condonation of delay and filed present\nappeal on 05.06.2024. Hence, there occurred a delay in filing appeal. Ld. AR\nvery humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide\nintention or ulterior motive in making delay and the assessee or L/R does\nnot stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He submitted that the sole\nreason of delay

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

condoned.\n3.5 Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without\nraising any objection.\n3.6 We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in\nabsence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to\nhave a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal as explained by Ld.\nAR. We find

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

capital gain of Rs.1,02,34,840/- from sale of\nimpugned agricultural land, (ii) low household expenses of Rs.80,000/-\nand (iii) Unexplained expenses of Rs.67,430/- registration and stamp duty\nof new property purchased. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-\nappeal but the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order due to non-prosecution by\nassessee and upheld

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condones the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.3 Since in the both the appeals common question arises with consent of the parties they are being heard together and is being disposed off by this common order. 2.4 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053006826(1) dated 19.05.2023 the income

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

condones the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.3 Since in the both the appeals common question arises with consent of the parties they are being heard together and is being disposed off by this common order. 2.4 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053006826(1) dated 19.05.2023 the income

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Capital Gains on Compulsory Acquisition) -Rs 24,79,657 2.Addition under Section 56 (Interest Income on Compensation) Rs.7,12,816 3. Income originally declared by the appellant-Rs. 1,75,380 6.4 After due consideration of all the facts available on record, the additions of Rs 31,92,473 are upheld as the appellant has failed to explain the nature

BHARAT SINGH CHAWDA,DEWAS vs. THE ITO-1 , DEWAS

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyania.Y. 2011-12

condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 2. The assessee has filed the concise grounds of the appeal as under: 3 Bharat Singh Chawda ITA No.234 of 2023 “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case: - 1. The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the order, which is bad- in-law, void ab-initio, barred

ASHWINI SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-2(5), BHOPAL

In the result “impugned order” is set aside as and by way

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiashwani Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 169 Crystle Ideal City, 2(5), Vs. Awadhpuri, Bhopal Bhopal (Pan: Aemps0026G) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2025

capital gain. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 08.05.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia contended that there is delay of Page

LATE SHRI BALKRISHAN JOSHI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI BHOOPENDRA JOSHI),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. This is the 2nd round of litigation by assessee before us. The background facts are such that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,13,910/- which included long-term capital gain

GOURAV BHARGAVA,BHOPAL vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

condone the\nsmall delay of 23 days, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the\nassessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2023-24 on 30.10.2023\nu/s 139(1) before due date of 31.10.2023 declaring a total income of Rs.\n40,17,574/-. The AO processed assessee

SHRI LEELAHAR PALASIYAWALA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(4), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Leeladhar Palasiyawala, Pr.Cit-1, Village Kalariya, Post Indore बनाम/ Kalariya, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bqdppo511K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

condone the delay, allow this appeal and proceed for hearing. Page 2 of 16 Leeladhar Palasiawala, Indore, vs. Pr. CIT –I, Indore. ITA No. 346/Ind/2022 – AY 2015-16 4. Brief facts are such that the assessee filed return of income of relevant assessment-year which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment and the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3). Subsequently

ANTAR SINGH MEWADA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiantar Singh Mewada, Cit(A), बनाम/ 1, Barkhera Salam 1, Nfac, Vs. Barkhera Salam, Delhi Po Bhouri, Techsil Hujur Dist. Bhopal (Pan:Bompm3467E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 3.3 The Ld. AR then submitted that in sum and substance both the “impugned assessment order” as well as the “impugned order” are bad in law, illegal and not proper. It was contended that in the “impugned assessment order” the Ld. Assessing Officer has taxed the capital gain