SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 16.10.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, for A.Y.2014-15. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

E) [2015] 53 taxmann.com 404 (Del) has held as under: "54. It would be pertinent to reiterate that Section 2(15) is only a definition clause. Section 2 begins with the words, "in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires". The expression "charitable purpose"appearing in Section 2(15) of the said Act has to be seen in Page

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

E) [2015] 53 taxmann.com 404 (Del) has held as under: "54. It would be pertinent to reiterate that Section 2(15) is only a definition clause. Section 2 begins with the words, "in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires". The expression "charitable purpose"appearing in Section 2(15) of the said Act has to be seen in Page

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

E) [2015] 53 taxmann.com 404 (Del) has held as under: "54. It would be pertinent to reiterate that Section 2(15) is only a definition clause. Section 2 begins with the words, "in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires". The expression "charitable purpose"appearing in Section 2(15) of the said Act has to be seen in Page

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

E) [2015] 53 taxmann.com 404 (Del) has held as under: "54. It would be pertinent to reiterate that Section 2(15) is only a definition clause. Section 2 begins with the words, "in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires". The expression "charitable purpose"appearing in Section 2(15) of the said Act has to be seen in Page

SHRI SUNIL SHASRMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11

22 to 25 of the paper book. 8. Per contra ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of both lower authorities. 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through ground no.2 & 4 assessee has challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition for Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.6,63,525/- made

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

22.\nThe real test for sound exercise of discretion by\nthe High Court in this regard is not the physical running\nof time as such, but the test is whether by reason of delay\nthere is such negligence on the part of the petitioner, so as\nto infer that he has given up his claim or whether before\nthe petitioner

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 31.01.2020 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 25.02.2014 passed by Dy. CIT, Circle 5(1), Indore, [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

capital and revenue. It only mandates that expenditure should be on the objects of trust which is very clear from above submission that the expenditure incurred was towards the objects of the trust. 3.5 In support of his contention he has relied upon the following judgements: i.[2007] 14 SOT 318 (Mumbai)[22-12-2005] Institute of Marine Engineers

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 08.01.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, for A.Y.2017-18. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. It transpires from the record that on the earlier date

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

e-mail ID as available with the department and the assessee did not respond to the said show cause notice which shows that the assessee might not be aware about the show cause notice issued by the Pr. CIT. The delay up to 30th May 2022 is covered by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

e-mail dated 11th April 2022 on the above-mentioned subject. In this regard, I am directed to convey that SLP in the case of CIT (TDS), Bangalore v. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) 72 Taxmann.com 347 (Kar) has not been approved by Board for the following reason: "As it has been repeatedly established in various cases, involving the issue

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

e-mail dated 11th April 2022 on the above-mentioned subject. In this regard, I am directed to convey that SLP in the case of CIT (TDS), Bangalore v. Vodafone South Ltd. (2016) 72 Taxmann.com 347 (Kar) has not been approved by Board for the following reason: "As it has been repeatedly established in various cases, involving the issue