M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: 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 passed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even

RADHAKISHAN,KHATEGAON, DEWAS vs. ITO-2, DEWAS, DEWAS

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. Hence the appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing. 3.2 The Ld. AR for & on behalf of the assessee has placed on record of this Tribunal a paper book containing pages 1 to 81 & a four pages written submissions in support. Few orders of ITAT are also placed on record

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, 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

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

VIRENDRA KUMAR NAMDEV,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

02,070/-. Subsequently, on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the I.TA No. 254/IND/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 3 Virendra Kumar Namdev Vs. CIT(A) Investigation Wing, DDIT (Inv.), Indore, in the case of M/s Shree Vardhman Traders, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had facilitated large bank transactions of that concern and had provided bogus accommodation entries. Based

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

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961 [herein after referred to as the Act for sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-CIT(A)-3, /IT/11185,11214,11217,11221,11225,11227/2019-20 Bhopal Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 A.Ys

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

02,34,840/- from sale of impugned agricultural land, (ii) low household expenses of Rs. 80,000/-, and (iii) Unexplained expenses of Rs. 67,430/- registration and stamp duty of new property purchased. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first- appeal but the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order due to non-prosecution by Page 2 of 8 Kishore Sevani

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

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 return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 30.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.18,14,79,168/- which was set off entirely against the brought forward loss

BHARAT SINGH PAWAR ,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , RATLAM

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

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Bharat Singh Pawar, Income-Tax Officer, Gram Chorana, Ward 1, बनाम/ Post Nau Gaon, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bnxpp4510K Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- i. The ld. NFAC was not justified in upholding the order of the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the order passed u/s 143(3) r/w sec 147 was illegal, void, in breach of principle of natural justice. ii. That

YOGESH SOOD,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHOPAL

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

02. That the Re-opening of Assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 is based on flimsy/false/baseless grounds, which have no relevance with the facts and thereby unlawful. 03.That Re-assessment Proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 have been initiated without ensuring proper service of Notice u/s 148 on the Appellant and thereby entire Re-assessment Proceedings have vitiated and become null

VIJAY,INDORE vs. ITO 5(3), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshivijay, Ito 5(3), Indore बनाम/ 15, Khandwa Road, Vs. Simrol, Indore (Pan:Agzpv0192K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ashish Goyal, Adv. & Sh. N.D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anil Kapoor, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No:-ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073725721(1) dated 26.02.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred

NEHA TAMRAKAR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, the “Impugned Order” is set aside as & by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshineha Tamrakar, Ito -5(1), बनाम/ 177 A Sector, Indrapuri Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal(M.P.) (Pan: Ajtpt6475G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

02,100/-. Page 2 of 13 Neha Tamrakar ITA No. 175/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2009-10 Hence, after recording reason u/s 148(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') and getting approval on 26.02.2016 from the competent authority u/s 151 of the 'Act' notice u/s 148 of the 'Act' dated 03.03.2016 was issued. Due to change of incumbent notice

NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under: (i) The assessee-individual is a small trader engaged in the business of oil cake (khali) at a small town ‘Chandrawati Ganj

STUTI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,NAGDA vs. ITO 2(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshistuti Construction Pvt. Ito 2(2), बनाम/ Ltd, Ujjain Vs. 53 Government Colony, Birla Gram, Nagda (Pan: Aahcs3932R) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

02-2014 by cheque no 641574 on 28-02-2014 31-03-2014 by cheque no.604608. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, the order passed by Hon. CI T(A) may please be set aside as the Hon CIT (A) erred by confirming additions

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeded with for hearing. Page 2 of 12 Saleem Parvez ITANo.248/Ind/2021 4. The assessee submitted original return on 31.10.2015 at a total income of Rs. 2,74,75,700/- and revised return on 17.08.2016 at a total income of Rs. 3,76,76,850/-. The case of assessee was selected under scrutiny through

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 5. Briefly stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are such that the AO, on the basis of AIR information revealing that the assessee had made cash-deposits in bank a/c, issued notice

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 5. Briefly stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are such that the AO, on the basis of AIR information revealing that the assessee had made cash-deposits in bank a/c, issued notice

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 5. Briefly stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are such that the AO, on the basis of AIR information revealing that the assessee had made cash-deposits in bank a/c, issued notice