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

253 may appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has power to pass such orders on such an appeal as it thinks fit. Sub section (4) of section 254 attaches finality to, the orders of the Tribunal subject to the provisions of section 256 ( or section 260A). Needless to say the orders passed by the Tribunal are binding

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gains arising from the sale of immovable property. The AO is directed to give proper opportunities to the assessee and pass a fresh order after considering the applicability of the first and third provisos to Section 50C.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "263", "144B", "50C", "48", "54B", "253(5

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act\" for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065972504(1) dated 24.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred

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

section 253(5)\nand the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view,\ncondone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.\n4.\nThe background facts leading to this appeal are such that the\nassessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2015-16 declaring a total\nincome of Rs.9,79,790/- from different sources

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

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, 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

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Since the assessee has raised a legal issue regarding validity of the order passed under section 271D as barred by limitation, therefore, we first take up the issue of limitation. The Additional CIT has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271D by issuing the show

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Since the assessee has raised a legal issue regarding validity of the order passed under section 271D as barred by limitation, therefore, we first take up the issue of limitation. The Additional CIT has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271D by issuing the show

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Capital Gain Deposit Scheme, 1988. Therefore,\nthere can hardly be any hesitation about meritorious nature of assessee's\ncase. With these submissions, Ld. AR relied upon Collector, Land\nAcquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387\n(SC); Shree Rajendra Suri Sah Sakh Sanstha Myd, ITA No. 360 &\n361/Ind/2023 (ITAT, Indore); Shree Swamy Samarth Prassana

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

Appeal is partly allowed

253(5) and the\nGourav Bhargava\nITA No. 235/Ind/2025 – AY 2023-24\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, 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

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Since the assessee has raised a legal issue regarding validity of the order passed under section 271D as barred by limitation, therefore, we first take up the issue of limitation. The Additional CIT has initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271D by issuing the show

KAMLESH MOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1),BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we\ntake a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with\nhearing.\n4.\nLd. AR for assessee submits that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the\nappeal shall be in writing and shall state the points

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this Tribunal as & by way of second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:- ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074463840(1) dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after Page

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

MUNSHI PATEL,INDORE vs. ITO 5(4), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Munshi Patel, Ito-5(4), 723, Kanadia Road, Indore बनाम/ Khajrana, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Fmlpp8271A Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayawargiya, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. It emerged during hearing that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order due to non-prosecution of first-appeal by assessee on the dates of hearing and confirmed the AO’s assessment. That apart

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Kishore Sewani, Ito-1(4) बनाम/ House No.33, Parika Bhopal Vs. Society, Phase-1, Chunabhatti, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Ankps8260M Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025

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

RAJESH CHANDWANI,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Chandwani, Income-Tax Officer, New Sant Kabeer Traders, 3(3), Rahmat Market, Bhopal बनाम/ Ghora Nakkas, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afdpc4229B Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

section 253(5), the merit of case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed original return of income of AY 2012-13 on 23.12.2013 u/s 139 declaring a total income

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal\nafter expiry of prescribed time, subject of course that the ITAT is satisfied\nthat there was “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed\ntime.\n\n15.\nFurther, in the landmark decision of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs\nMst. Katiji and others