NIRMAL RAMTANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. Accordingly we admit the Appeal. 3.2 The Id. AR then submitted that search and seizure

ACIT(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Building construction. In the case of the assessee search and seizure

ACIT 1( 1 ), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Building construction. In the case of the assessee search and seizure

THE ACIT 1 (1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Building construction. In the case of the assessee search and seizure

THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Building construction. In the case of the assessee search and seizure

ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Building construction. In the case of the assessee search and seizure

ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Building construction. In the case of the assessee search and seizure

ACIT1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI ASHOK GOYAL, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Building construction. In the case of the assessee search and seizure

SHRI GYANENDRA SINGH JADON,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gyanendra Singh Jadon Dcit-1(1) M-4, Radio Colony, Bhopal बनाम Indore /Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aespj9459E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

delay is condoned and appeal was proceeded for hearing. 3. Precisely stated the facts are such that a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of one Shri Mukesh Sharma on 21.07.2008 wherein certain documents were seized on the basis of which it was inferred that Shri Mukesh Sharma was a contractor-cum-liasoning agent

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were carried out on 5.5.2011 at the business as well as residential premises of Keti Kalyan Group of Indore comprising of various companies, business concerns and individuals. During the course of search Mr. Tikamchand Garg, who is also a director and share holder in various group companies on behalf of the business concerns

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were carried out on 5.5.2011 at the business as well as residential premises of Keti Kalyan Group of Indore comprising of various companies, business concerns and individuals. During the course of search Mr. Tikamchand Garg, who is also a director and share holder in various group companies on behalf of the business concerns

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act were carried out on 5.5.2011 at the business as well as residential premises of Keti Kalyan Group of Indore comprising of various companies, business concerns and individuals. During the course of search Mr. Tikamchand Garg, who is also a director and share holder in various group companies on behalf of the business concerns

JYOTSANA CHOUHAN ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL -2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condone the delay in filing the appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case as per assessment order are that a search u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on the residential premises of the appellant assessee as well as on the premises of other related concerns/business associates on 29.01.2014. Since, the various concerns and individuals are inter

SHRI VINEET CHOUHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

condone the delay in filing the appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case as per assessment order are that a search u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on the residential premises of the appellant assessee as well as on the premises of other related concerns/business associates on 29.01.2014. Since, the various concerns and individuals are inter

ALAMAIL RAJU,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condone the delay of 76 days made in filing these three appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that

SMT. ALAMAIL RAJU,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

condone the delay of 76 days made in filing these three appeals and admit them for adjudication. 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that