M/S AADHAR ASSOCIATES,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-2, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Aadhar Associates Pr. Cit-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavfa 7526 Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

delay of 330 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Id CIT was not justified in passing order u/s. 263, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled

SHRI SALEEM PARVEZ,BHOPAL vs. PCIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Saleem Parvez Pcit-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ P.A.No. Acyps8006L Vs. Appellant (Assessee) Respondent (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22 / 02 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09 /03/ 2022 आदेश / O R D E R

revision-order dated 25.03.2021 passed by Ld. PCIT-1, Bhopal, [“Ld. PCIT” for short] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act” for short] for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following Grounds: “1. The order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal and bad in law and hence be set aside. Page

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

revision order passed u/s 263 pursuant to the amendment made w.e.f. 1st June 2015 is bad in law. 5. That the Pr. CIT grossly erred in law in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was very casual and passed in a hurried manner did not examine all the material facts of the case and was erroneous

JABBAR KHAN,DEWAS vs. CIT , UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Jabbar Khan, Pr. Cit, Village-Siya, Tehsil-Dewas बनाम/ Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Cndpk 0362 H Assessee By Shri Ashok Mahajan, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

revision-Order dated 13.03.2019 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ujjain [“Ld. PCIT”] u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 15.11.2016 passed by learned ITO-1, Dewas [Ld. “AO”] u/s 148 read with section 143(3) of the act for Assessment-Year

ROOP SINGH TANWAR,DEWAS vs. THE CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Roop Singh Tanwar Pcit Dewas Ujjain बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajtpt 7633 E Assessee By Shri A.K. Mahajan, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2022

revision-order dated 13.03.2019 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ujjain [“Ld. PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 15.12.2016 passed by learned ITO-1, Dewas [“Ld. AO”] u/s 147 read with 143(3) for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2009-10, the assessee has filed this appeal

M/S J.C.SHARMA & SONS,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -2, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. J.C. Sharma & Sons Pr. Cit -2 बनाम Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Aaefj 6447 L Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhuller, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

revision order deserves to be quashed. 3. The Ld. CIT failed to notice that the issues on which jurisdictional u/s 263 was exercised, were already inquired during the assessment u/s 143(3), and thus the order u/s 143(3) cannot be said to be erroneous. 4. The Ld. CIT was not justified in not giving the revenue impact

DBL JAORA-SAILANA TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1 BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16 Dbl Jaora-Sailana Pcit-1, Tollways Private Ltd., Bhopal Plot No.5, Inside Govind Naryn Singh बनाम/ Gate, Vs. Kolar Road, Chunabhatti, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaecd4621R Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.11.2025

u/s 263 but the said revision-order dated 31.01.2020 had already been quashed by ITAT, Indore bench in aforesaid ITA No. 147/Ind/2020, order dated 31.07.2023. Therefore, when the said revision-order has already been quashed, the order of fresh assessment dated 29.02.2022 passed in pursuance thereof has become infructuous. Consequently, the PCIT could not pass the impugned order dated

ABHAY KUMAR JAIN,RAISEN vs. PR CIT -2 , BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Abhay Kumar Jain, Pr. Cit-2 Old Bus Stand, Begumganj बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Afqpj 0679 F Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2022

delay, we are persuaded to condone the same and the appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. By means of various grounds raised in appeal-memo, which we do not reproduce for the sake of brevity, the only grievance of assessee is that the revision-order passed Ld. PCIT u/s 263

SHRI MOTILAL NAGAR SMRITI SHIKSHAN SAMITI,INDORE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

revision u/s 263, holding the assessment order erroneous as the assessee filed Form 9A instead of Form 10 and also Form 10B for the subsequent year was not filed. The CIT(E) also noted delay in filing Form 10 and lack of condonation

MADHYA PRADESH VIDYUT MANDAL KARMCHARI PARASPAR SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, we reject condonation request of assessee and consequently this appeal filed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshimadhya Pradesh Vidyut Pr. Cit-1, बनाम/ Mandal Karmchari Indore Vs. Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shop No.5 Nahar Sayyad Road, Kityani Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaaam6716A Assessee By Shri Ashok Ratnawat, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2025

u/s 263. Therefore, the assessee does not have any merit in challenging the revision-order passed by PCIT. With this submission, Ld. DR requested that the assessee’s request for condonation of delay

SHRI SANDEEEP RAGHUVANSHI,HARDA vs. THE PCIT.BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisandeep Raghuvanshi Pr. Cit 25D Jambheshwar Bhawan Bhopal Vs. Nehru Colony Harda (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aicpr 3080 M Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11 .01.2024

revision order dated 22.03.2022 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 11 months in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit to explain the cause of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that

MANISH MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeals are allowed with\nthe result that the impugned orders of fresh assessment dated 23

delay of 103 days, 233 days and 20 days\nrespectively in filing these appeals and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for\nassessee firstly submitted that the assessees have filed condonation\napplications supported by affidavits. Referring to para 5 & 6 of the affidavits,\nLd. AR submitted that the present matters emanate from revision-orders\npassed by PCIT u/s 263

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

revision order dated 18.02.2022 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short Pr. CIT) Indore passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. There is a delay of 199 days in filing the present appeal. The assesse filed an application for condonation

ABHISHEK SINGH,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Abhishek Singh (Prop.) Pr. Cit-1 Mahaveer Road Lines Bhopal 9/9 Shriram Apartment, Vs. Malviya Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Anqps9754E Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

revision order of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax dated 27.03.2017 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. It transpires from the record that after filing the present appeal the assessee is not appearing in the proceeding ITANo.443/Ind/2023 Abhishek Singh

SHRI JANKILAL,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

revision-order dated 25.02.2022 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Indore-1 [“Ld. PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 05.02.2019 passed by learned ITO-1(1), Ujjain [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of the act for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed

ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeals are allowed with

Bench: Us In Next Appeals.

delay of 103 days, 233 days and 20 days respectively in filing these appeals and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee firstly submitted that the assessees have filed condonation applications supported by affidavits. Referring to para 5 & 6 of the affidavits, Ld. AR submitted that the present matters emanate from revision-orders passed by PCIT u/s 263

MANOJ KUMAR MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, DEWAS

Appeals are allowed with

Bench: Us In Next Appeals.

delay of 103 days, 233 days and 20 days respectively in filing these appeals and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee firstly submitted that the assessees have filed condonation applications supported by affidavits. Referring to para 5 & 6 of the affidavits, Ld. AR submitted that the present matters emanate from revision-orders passed by PCIT u/s 263

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). 2. At first, we shall take up the assessee’s appeal i.e. ITANo.198/Ind/2020 for the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Andritz Hydro Private Limited (here-in-after referred