M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business concerns and individuals, surrendered unaccounted income of Rs. 51 crore and offered it for taxation and also gave post dated cheques of Rs. 7.51 crores towards taxes. Subsequently, assessment proceedings u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act were carried out in the group cases after issuing necessary notices as required under the law. The unaccounted income

VINAYAK CARE SOLUTATION (P) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE OTO WARD 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ito-3(2) Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 115, Atlanta Estate Vs. Goregaon, Mulund Link Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aabcv8500G Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema & P.D. Nagar Ars Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhopal Dated 08.02.2016 For The Assessment

condone the delay subject of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the account of Central Government. [ITA No.137/Ind/2019] [Vinayak Care Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ] 9. Now, we take up the matter. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That the learned Commissioner of Income tax(A) erred in law in not affording reasonable opportunity of being heard while

M/S NEO SACK LTD vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

condonation of the delay. We, therefore, dismiss ITA No. 413/Ind/20107 and CO Nos. 75 & 76/Ind/2009 being barred by limitation. Even otherwise none is appearing on behalf of the assessee and the appeals and cross objections are even otherwise liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 11. Now we would like to deal with ITA Nos. 262/Ind/2008 and 263/Ind/2008 filed

M/S NEO SACK LTD. vs. THE ACIT 4(2),

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

condonation of the delay. We, therefore, dismiss ITA No. 413/Ind/20107 and CO Nos. 75 & 76/Ind/2009 being barred by limitation. Even otherwise none is appearing on behalf of the assessee and the appeals and cross objections are even otherwise liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 11. Now we would like to deal with ITA Nos. 262/Ind/2008 and 263/Ind/2008 filed

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

condone the delay of 106 days and admit the appeal and allow the appeal proceeded with for adjudication. 6. Now we shall deal with regular grounds of appeal of the assessee which reads as us under:- 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-II Indore has erred in confirming penalty

M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

business of lodging and boarding .The assessee claimed unabsorbed depreciation Rs 806960 of earlier year from net profit of Rs 710236 and declared the income nil as shown in audit report. The difference amount of Rs 96730 unabsorbed depreciation of was carried forward for future year. 1.2 The return was processed under section

VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

delay except assertion that it was not aware of the order passed and under bonafide belief that the objection raised under the provisions of section 154 to allow the set off the loss to the business income was accepted; cannot be a sufficient cause to condone

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

Income Tax Act 1961. Prayer was made to condone the delay. Ld. DR opposed the request. We however under the given facts and circumstances of the case, are satisfied with the reason giving rise to delay in filing the instant appeal. We condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case

NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal. 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 231 days and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/ Page 1 of 17 Nilesh Jain ITA No. 631/Ind/2025 – AY 2011-12 affidavit for condonation of delay

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

condonation of delay in respect of refund due. This instruction is issued with an objective to mitigate the hardship to the assessee. Para 7 of the Instruction, in our view, is limited to the extent of ascertaining the claim of the assessee. This does not empower the Assessing Officer to make scrutiny of the entire case, which goes against

RAMCHANDRA MANGILAL SARATHE,KHANDWA vs. ITO-I KHANDWA, KHANDWA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramchandra Mangilal Ito-1 Sarathe Khandwa Gram Mathela Vs. Khandwa

condonation of delay in filing of appeal under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench- Indore. Relevant to A.Y. 2009-10. Dear Sir, With reference to above subject citation, we would like to inform you that the assessee is an agriculturist, engaged in the agricultural activities in his whole life. Also during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

business. 12. Brief facts relating to this issue are that during year under consideration assessee was operating three wind mills for power generation. One situated at Jodha (Rajasthan) and other two at Shajapur(Madhya Pradesh). After claiming the depreciation as per Income Tax there was net profit in Jodha unit and losses in the two units at Shajapur

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

business. 12. Brief facts relating to this issue are that during year under consideration assessee was operating three wind mills for power generation. One situated at Jodha (Rajasthan) and other two at Shajapur(Madhya Pradesh). After claiming the depreciation as per Income Tax there was net profit in Jodha unit and losses in the two units at Shajapur

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

business. 12. Brief facts relating to this issue are that during year under consideration assessee was operating three wind mills for power generation. One situated at Jodha (Rajasthan) and other two at Shajapur(Madhya Pradesh). After claiming the depreciation as per Income Tax there was net profit in Jodha unit and losses in the two units at Shajapur

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

business. 12. Brief facts relating to this issue are that during year under consideration assessee was operating three wind mills for power generation. One situated at Jodha (Rajasthan) and other two at Shajapur(Madhya Pradesh). After claiming the depreciation as per Income Tax there was net profit in Jodha unit and losses in the two units at Shajapur

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay of 264 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 6.2 In the assessment order the AO has taken the deposit made in the current year of the assesse as business receipts and adopted the presumptive business income

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay of 264 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 6.2 In the assessment order the AO has taken the deposit made in the current year of the assesse as business receipts and adopted the presumptive business income

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay of 264 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 6.2 In the assessment order the AO has taken the deposit made in the current year of the assesse as business receipts and adopted the presumptive business income