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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE DY CIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPASL vs. M/S R.K.GUPTA & ENGINEERS P LTD, 2009-10

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

assessment can be reopened on the basis of change of opinion. A Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Marico Ltd. in Special Leave Peition (Civil) Diary No. 7367/2020 dated 01.06.2020 held as follows: Delay Condoned

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

reopened u/s 147 and a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021. Notice u/s 142(1) of the act dated 14.01.2022 was issued to the assessee calling for the details, documents and evidences to explain the above transactions during the year under consideration. But the notice was returned back by the postal authorities with the remark “Addressee Moved”. The case

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

reopened u/s 147 and a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021. Notice u/s 142(1) of the act dated 14.01.2022 was issued to the assessee calling for the details, documents and evidences to explain the above transactions during the year under consideration. But the notice was returned back by the postal authorities with the remark “Addressee Moved”. The case

SHRI ISLAM PATEL,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5 (5), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Islam Patel Ito, 5(5) 13, Mayakhedi Jhalariya Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Dpcpp 7925 D Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds: “1. That, the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT-A is erroneous on the facts and in law. Page 2 of 5 SMC-Islam Patel Page 3 of 5 2. That, the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT-A, is contrary to the weight of evidence

SEEMA SINHA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may be decided on merits. He has also contended that reopening of the assessment

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assesse was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic

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

AMANULLAH,INDORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniamanullah Nfac 83/3, Juna Risala, Delhi Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apipa0680H Assessee By Shri Manish Dafria, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2024

delay of 75 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: Page 2 of 8 ITANo.240/Ind/2024 Amanullah “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no legal basis available with the Ld. A.O. to make

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

reopening u/s 147/148 with the reason that the assessee was failed to explain the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs.51,33,000/- in the saving bank account no. 12571000039933 of HDFC Bank, Br. M.P. Nagar, Zone II, Bhopal during the F.Y.2012-13. On perusal of bank statement, the cash credits and immediately withdrawals from such bank account did not have