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

SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

condone the delay and take up the appeal for hearing. 6. Ground Nos.1 to 4 are inter-connected and are against treating the agricultural land as capital asset. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the statement of facts. The submission of Ld. Counsel in the statement of facts are as under: 1. “The appellant

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

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

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay. 3. The original assessment order was passed by the Learned AO on 15.12.2017 under Section 143(3) of the Act, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and considering the written submissions along with copy of the computation of income, bank statement and other details as sought for. These documents were duly examined

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was completed on 27.10.2016 accepting the total income of Rs. 19,740/- as declared by the assessee in the return of income filed. The assessee is an individual and not having any income liable to tax as stated

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

SHILPA MALIK,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

capital gain. The aforesaid assessment orders bears No.20121154717 and that the same is dated 16.12.2019, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order". 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order" prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order" has dismissed

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

SHIVNARAYAN RAJPUT,HOSHANGABAD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ITARSI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, ITARSI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishivnarayan Rajput, Ito, Ward-1, बनाम/ House No.33

condones the delay of 87 days in filing the present second appeal. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 3.2 The Ld. AR then submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and lacks adequate knowledge. Notice(s) of the Ld. A.O could not be complied with due to depression which was on account of death of his wife

SUMAN KUMAR ANAND,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Suman Kumar Principal Cit-1, Anand, Bhopal बनाम/ 22,Lala Lajpat Rai Colony, Raisen Road, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aebpa7192N Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.07.2023

delay is condoned and hearing is proceeded. 4. The factual background of present case is such that the assessee filed return of income of relevant AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017. In the return so filed, the assessee declared sale of a land for Rs. 2,91,00,000/- on 04.03.2017 resulting into a capital gain

SMT. ARUNA JAIN,MEGHNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Aruna Jain, Ito 512, Near Railway Station, Jhabua बनाम/ Meghnagar, Jhabua Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ainpj0505E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Nishit Doshi, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

gaining or deriving any benefit. It is further submitted that had the order of the learned CIT(A) been served upon my address as mentioned in the appeal memo, the delay would not have so caused. 12. Your Honours, I am an old lady, suffering from many medical ailments, inter-alia, of retinal disease and profound visual impairment