ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

condoned and appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. The grounds raised by parties are as under: Assessee’s ITA No. 11/Ind/2019 for AY 2012-13: Page 2 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance

AMIT VYAS,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), UJJAIN , UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Amit Vyas, Income-Tax Officer, 103, Raghukul Apartment, 2(1), बनाम/ Kshpanak Marg, Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aefpv4664L Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2024

46,12,360/-. 2.1 Aggrieved by AO’s order, the assessee filed first appeal to CIT(A) on 30.12.2019 with a huge delay of 669 days as calculated by CIT(A). The CIT(A) was not satisfied with the reasoning advanced by assessee for delayed filing, therefore he treated assessee’s appeal as invalid and dismissed on this technical ground

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

46,640. In the Return of Income, the assessee claimed deduction Under Section 54F of the Act. The claim of the deduction Under Section 54F was denied by the Assessing Officer on the reason that the assessee has not deposited the net sale consideration in Capital Gain Scheme Account which is a clear violation provisions of Section

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

MAMTA DHOLPURE,INDORE vs. ITO 3(3), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condonation of delay in filing the appeal.\n2) That my Income Tax Returns for the Financial Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 were filed\nNOTAR\nMOHAN PAL\nby my consultant. My income consists primarily of three heads: Salary. Interest on\n*Occupied Property, and Interest Income.\n*NOTARY, Distt. Indoris\nM.P. GOVT Thad shifted my residence in the year

MAHESH CHANDRA AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimahesh Chandra Agrawal, Cit(A), बनाम/ Prop. M/S Swarn Pushp Nfac, Vs. Jwellers, Delhi Sarafa Chowk, Indore (Pan:Aavpa8254B) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gowind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047981997(1) dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

WAKEUP FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the grounds of

Bench: Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.895 & 898/Ind/2024 (Hybrid Hearing) Wakeup Foundation, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 41/411, Jangampura, South Bhopal Rajmohalla, Mp - 452002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaw9534A (Appellant) (Respondent)

46 days in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that assessee-society was negligent during the proceedings before CIT(E). He would, however, have no objection if the delay is condoned. 5. We have considered the reasons given by the appellant-society and perused with

WAKEUP FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the grounds of

Bench: Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.895 & 898/Ind/2024 (Hybrid Hearing) Wakeup Foundation, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 41/411, Jangampura, South Bhopal Rajmohalla, Mp - 452002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaw9534A (Appellant) (Respondent)

46 days in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that assessee-society was negligent during the proceedings before CIT(E). He would, however, have no objection if the delay is condoned. 5. We have considered the reasons given by the appellant-society and perused with

SCIENCE FORUM FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH,GRAM MINDIA, SANVER ROAD vs. CIT(A), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18

Delay condoned. Matter admitted and taken up for hearing. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That an information was received in respect of assessee through AIMs module of TBA that the assessee during the period of demonetization from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.42,70,836/- in the bank accounts maintained by it. 2.2 That notices

SIDDHI VINAYAK,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Siddhi Vinayak, Income-Tax Officer, 210, Dhan Trident, 3(1), Satya Sai Square, Indore. बनाम/ Vijay Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Accfs1664A Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Final Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2024

46,65,390/- While doing so, the AO rejected the books of accounts and book results u/s 145(3) of the Act and estimated the profits of the business at the average rate of 2.0862 percentage of the total sales of Rs. 31,40,27,378/- without considering the fact that books of accounts of assessee firm were audited

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, CHAAPEHEDA,CHAAPEHEDA vs. NEAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46,692/-. The assessee was specifically required to furnish details of the incidental objects, activities covered under such incidental objects, income earned therefrom, the nexus between incidental objects and main objects, and also copies of registration under section 12A/12AA and approval under section 10(23C) of the Act as claimed in the return. Since no compliance was made