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

PRAKASH NARAYAN PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(4), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Prakash Narayan Patidar, Cit(A)-3 बनाम Misrod, Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Aprpp7337R Assessee By None Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

delay is condoned and appeal was preceded for hearing. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That a proper and meaningful opportunity has not been afforded to the assessee to put up his defense in respect of the issues disputed in appeal. 2. That ld. CIT has erred in not conducting proper verification of the facts

SARWAR MOHD. KHAN,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

delay is hereby condoned. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of call no adjournment has been sought for. However, a short submission has been filed by the assessee in favour of the case made out. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the order passed by the authorities below

MOHAMMAD ZAHOOR QURESHI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-4(2), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Zahoor Ito 4(2), Qureshi, Bhopal House No.956, Bagh Farhat Afza Gate Ke Andar, बनाम/ Gali No.2, Vs. Near Rajesh Cycle Aishbagh Stadium, Bhopal

Delay condoned. Appeal taken for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That the assessee had filed his return of income on 26.02.2016 wherein a total income of Rs.2,14,400/- was declared. 2.2 That the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2.3 That the Department of Income Tax had an information that during the Financial Year

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(1), BHOPAL, METRO WALK BUILDING, BITTON MARKET, BHOPAL vs. SHABANA SHEIKH, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Long Term Capital Gains accrued to the appellant on sale of her immovable property. In view of the above, the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO is hereby deleted. The ground of appeal no. 2 is allowed. Page 3 of 8 Shabana Sheikh A.Y. 2018-19 Ground No.3:- The ground of appeal has been made

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

long term 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

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

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

long-term capital gain, and Rs.7,12,816 under Section 56 as taxable interest income, after allowing a 50% deduction under Section 57(iv). As the appellant failed to furnish any supporting documents, the assessing officer computed the Page 4 of 13 Sitaram Muchhala ITA No. 661/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 capital gains with the cost of acquisition and Improvement taken

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

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. The case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the AO issued statutory notices

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

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

long term capital gain on sale of land of Rs.5237580.00 was assessed by the learned AO and added to the total income of the assesse resulting in the demand of Rs. 1627310.00 which is not correct and needs to be deleted. 4 That value of property considered at Rs 17005000.000 being market value as against actual consideration

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

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

RAVI NAVLANI,INDORE vs. ITO, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiravi Navlani, Income Tax Officer 4(3), Ud-16 Appolo Square, Indore Race Course Road, Vs. Janjirwala Chouraha, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adjpn1579P Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit-Dr With Shri Nihar Sahu Date Of Hearing 23.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am:

gained by delaying the instant appeal. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) and also observing that the appeal filed by the appellant with a delay was unintentional, we condone the delay of 9 days and admit the appeal

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

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

condone the delay & the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3.2 The Ld. AR then submitted that his brief synopsis cum written statement containing three pages wherein proper correlation is made with the paper book filed be taken into consideration. The sheet anchor of the Ld. AR argument was that during the relevant period, the assessee had sold the shares

GEETA BAI,BERASIA vs. ITO 4(4) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

delay of 98 days, 22 days and 23 days in filing these appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively is condoned. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Page 2 of 7 ITANos.303 to 305/Ind/2024 Geeta Bai ITA. No.303/Ind/2024 A.Y 2013-14: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case

GEETA BAI,BERASIA vs. ITO 4(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

delay of 98 days, 22 days and 23 days in filing these appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively is condoned. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Page 2 of 7 ITANos.303 to 305/Ind/2024 Geeta Bai ITA. No.303/Ind/2024 A.Y 2013-14: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case