MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

House property). That the aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment order” issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A(1)/ 270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too. 2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of the Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

houses. Conclusion with facts: I have considered all the facts & circumstance and material related to case available on records as mentioned supra. The assessee has not filed corroborative evidence and explanation for proving source of investment out of advance on sale of flats. There is no nexus between source of investment and advance taken on sale of flats on different

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. Page 3 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024- AY: 2015-16 49,130/-. In the return so filed, the assessee declared capital gain from

ANIL TURAKHIA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshianil Turakhia

Condonation of Delay Assessee Anil Turakhia 46, Loha Mandi Indore-452001503 Appeal No ITA 594/IND/2025 A.Υ. 2013-14 (Sec.143(3) r.w.s 254) -Delay 701 days May it please your honours, 1. The appellant submits that the order of the ld CIT(A) for A.Y. 2013-14 is dated 09.06.2023. The appellant was required to file appeal by 08.08.2023. Further

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual did not file any return of AY 2011-12. The AO, on the basis of AIR information, came to know that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 12,48,000/- in her a/c with SBI. Accordingly

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

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

house property and income from other sources. In the return so filed, the assessee also declared long-term capital gain computed at Rs. Nil from sale of an agricultural land situated at Gondermau, Bhopal for Rs. 1.25 crore after claiming deduction of cost of acquisition, transfer expenses and exemption u/s 54F on the basis of new investment in a property

SHEETAL KAUSHAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 5(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)

House No. 9C, v. ITO-5(2), Indrapuri Raisen Road, Bhopal M.P. Bittan Market, Bhopal, Pin. 462022 M.P. PAN-AQOPK6965C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. Nisha Lahoti, CA Respondent by: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 01.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 22.03.2023 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 4. The assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “(1) The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,38,997/- being interest received on fixed deposit on the bank as income from other sources. (2) It was proved before

BHARAT JAROLI,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bharat Jaroli, Pr. Cit, B.No. 45, 1, Kila Road, Ujjain बनाम/ Mahaveer Bagh, Vs. Neemuch (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aanpj5994K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

delay may kindly be condoned considering the explanation attached. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on facts contrary to the records of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

NEMICHAND JAIN,KALANI NAGAR, INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2017-18 Nemichand Jain Ito 4(1) 2, Airport Road, Indore बनाम/ Kalani Nagar Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj8164A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal are as follows: “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,16,000/- made

SHRI KAMLESH PUROHIT,KARAMDI vs. ITO, RATLAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Kamlesh Purohit, L/H & Ito S/O Late Ramsingh Purohit, Ratlam Vs. 89/1, Village Karamdi, Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bbbpp5709A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2024 O R D E R

delay of 107 days and the same is condoned. 2 Kamlesh Purohit 4. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of Id.ITO-1, Ratlam, who computed the capital gains on sale of agricultural land without deducting the indexed

LALJIPAL,BHOPAL vs. WARD-5(3) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Laljipal, The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 65, House No.75, Ward 5(3), Vidisha Road, Bhopal बनाम/ Gram Khejda Bramad, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Asqpp7836B Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024

House No.75, Ward 5(3), Vidisha Road, Bhopal बनाम/ Gram Khejda Bramad, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ASQPP7836B Assessee by Ms. Nisha Lahoti, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 06.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner

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

ABHIJIT UPADHYAYA,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Abhijit Upadhyay, Income-Tax Officer, D.K. Cottage, H.No.36, 4(2), बनाम/ E8, Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abnpu6818J Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2024

Housing Society, Arera Colony, Bhopal – 462016’ although the assessee had shifted his residence to ‘DK-36, D.K. Cottage, Bawaria Kalan, E-9, Bhopal – 462039’, therefore the physical order sent by the office of CIT(A) could not be served upon assessee; and (ii) the assessee is not tech-savy and that is why mentioned “No” against “Whether notices/communication

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 of Rs. 3,61,414/- from sale

GYAN PRAKASH TIWARI,RAJGARH vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradgyan Prakash Tiwari, Income Tax Officer, Talab Mohalla Chhapiheda, Shajapur Vs. Rajgarh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abupt8470C Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 O R D E R

condone the delay of 81 days and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant is a government school

MR.VINEET SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( IT&TP), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken up for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 5 Vineet shrivastava Page 3 of 5 6. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the impugned assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s

M/S BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY.DAIRY PLANT, BHOPAL vs. DCIT -1 (1) ,BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

condoned the delay and proceeded for hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee submitted return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 5,41,76,780/-. The Ld. AO selected case for scrutiny, issued statutory A.Y. 2012-13 Page 3 of 15 notices and finally completed assessment by passing order u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the total