SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

condoned and these appeals are admitted and heard. 6. The assessee is aggrieved by the late fee imposed by AO u/s 234E for delay filing of Statements of TDS in Form No. 24Q. Admittedly, the Statements relate to Quarter-2 and Quarter-3 of Financial Year 2012-13 and the assessee is claiming that prior to 01.06.2015, there

RADHAKRISHNA AKSHAR VIKAS NYAS ,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradhakrishna Akshar Vikas Acit 3(1) Nyas Bhopal Vs. Braj Colony Sironj Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatr 8725M Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

delay in filing the present appeal and accordingly the same is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs. 37,89,000/- to the total income of the appellant on account of treating donations as the "anonymous donation" u/s. 115BBC

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

115 Taxman 106/248 ITR\n29 (Bom)\n(ii) CIT v TTK Pharma Ltd (TCA No.298 of 2004, dated 23.12.2009) and\n(iii) Synco Industries Ltd v Assessing Officer, Income Tax (2008) 168\nTaxman 224/299 ITR 444 (SC).\n21.\nAs prefaced by us earlier, we first proceed to decide the correctness of the\norder passed by the Tribunal in permitting

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

115 taxmann.com 345/272\nTaxman 119 (Mad.)\n(iv)\nDundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. UOI [2015] 63\ntaxmann.com 243/235 Taxman 446 (Raj.)\n(v)\nRashmikant\nKundalia v. UOI [2015]\n54\ntaxmann.com 200/229 Taxman 596/373 ITR 268\n(Bom.)\n(vi)\nLakshminirman\nBangalore (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.\nCIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 144/234 Taxman\n275 (Kar.)\n(vii)\nSree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

115 as unexplained money u/s 69A against cash deposits. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation without giving an opportunity

PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

115 as unexplained money u/s 69A against cash deposits. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation without giving an opportunity

SANJANA CLOTHINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. AID, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

115 BAA of the Act read\nwith Rule 21AE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules),\nthe assessee company is required to submit Form 10-IC\nelectronically on or before the due date of filing of return of\nincome u/s 139(1) of the Act and such option once\nexercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years.\n1.3 Failure

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the revenue is treated as filed within the period of limitation. 3. The Revenue has raised following ground of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting

GIRIRAJIJI RAGHUNANDAN SHIKSHA PRASAR AND VIKAS SAMITI ,INDORE vs. ITO ( EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Girirajji Income-Tax Officer Raghunandan Shiksha (Exemption), Prasar & Vikas Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ 45, Vaishali Nagar, Vs. Kotra Sultanabad, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaba59632G Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2024

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- (i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order u/s 250 of the Act in the case of the appellant for assessment year 2009-10 without

SHRI LEELAHAR PALASIYAWALA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(4), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Leeladhar Palasiyawala, Pr.Cit-1, Village Kalariya, Post Indore बनाम/ Kalariya, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bqdppo511K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

115 days had occurred due to mis-understanding of law by counsel whereby he filed appeal against consequential assessment-order instead of impugned order. With this submission, Ld. AR prayed that the entire delay of 490 days is duly explained, the same is not because of any lethargy, negligence or mala fide intention of assessee and the assessee does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 68. As a result, ground no 2 is partly allowed. (5). In result, the appeal is partly allowed. 4. That the Revenue being aggrieved by the “Impugned order” has preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal in the Form No. 36 against the “Impugned order” which are as under:- “1. Ground

KAMLESH KOUSHAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(2), INDORE

3 of 18\nKamlesh Koushal\nITA No. 708/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2017-18\n1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee. The\ntotal income assessed is taxed u/s 115 BBE of the Act at\nthe rate of 60%.\nThat the aforesaid \"Assessment order\" bears No.\nITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1021206429(1) & that the same is\ndated 27.11.2019 which is herein after referred

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause