INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

131 days in filing both of these appeals. The\nrevenue/appellant has filed applications for condonation of delays\nsupported by affidavits. In these documents, Ld. DR for revenue explained,\nthe revenue has submitted following reason for delay:\n“I, Sanjeev Kumar, presently posted as Income Tax Officer-5(1), Indore do\nsolemnly affirm as under:-\n1.\nI am assessing officer having

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has not filed any documents to prove the genuineness & creditworthiness of the transactions made by him during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to A.Y.2013-14. Thus, I have no alternative but to complete the exparte assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.7 The Ld. A.O in the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

131 days in filing both of these appeals. The\nrevenue/appellant has filed applications for condonation of delays\nsupported by affidavits. In these documents, Ld. DR for revenue explained,\nthe revenue has submitted following reason for delay:\n2.1 \"I, Sanjeev Kumar, presently posted as Income Tax Officer-5(1), Indore do\nsolemnly affirm as under:-\n1. I am assessing officer having

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

131 of the Income Tax Act was issued for the recovery of demand to appear on 31.10.2023, the appellant came to know that this appeal has been dismissed on 13.12.2022. The Assistant Commissioner and other staff of the appellant were engaged in the election of State Legislative Assembly and due to this reason, delay occurred in filing appeal. The delay

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

131 of the Income Tax Act was issued for the recovery of demand to appear on 31.10.2023, the appellant came to know that this appeal has been dismissed on 13.12.2022. The Assistant Commissioner and other staff of the appellant were engaged in the election of State Legislative Assembly and due to this reason, delay occurred in filing appeal. The delay

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

131 of the Income Tax Act was issued for the recovery of demand to appear on 31.10.2023, the appellant came to know that this appeal has been dismissed on 13.12.2022. The Assistant Commissioner and other staff of the appellant were engaged in the election of State Legislative Assembly and due to this reason, delay occurred in filing appeal. The delay

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

131 of the Income Tax Act was issued for the recovery of demand to appear on 31.10.2023, the appellant came to know that this appeal has been dismissed on 13.12.2022. The Assistant Commissioner and other staff of the appellant were engaged in the election of State Legislative Assembly and due to this reason, delay occurred in filing appeal. The delay

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

131 of the Income Tax Act was issued for the recovery of demand to appear on 31.10.2023, the appellant came to know that this appeal has been dismissed on 13.12.2022. The Assistant Commissioner and other staff of the appellant were engaged in the election of State Legislative Assembly and due to this reason, delay occurred in filing appeal. The delay

DISTRICT ORGANISOR TRIBAL WELFARE BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)- 1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

131 of the Income Tax Act was issued for the recovery of demand to appear on 31.10.2023, the appellant came to know that this appeal has been dismissed on 13.12.2022. The Assistant Commissioner and other staff of the appellant were engaged in the election of State Legislative Assembly and due to this reason, delay occurred in filing appeal. The delay

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

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

131 days in filing the present appeal is due to unavoidable circumstances which were beyond the control of the assessee. Ld. DR has not objected to the contention of delay. Accordingly having considered the reasons explained by the assessee for delay in fling the appeal we are satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for delay in filing

IKON OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay of 41 days in filing the appeal in ITANo.53/Ind/2024 and the same is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds in quantum appeal: “1.The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the ex- parte order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio. barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable

IKON OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay of 41 days in filing the appeal in ITANo.53/Ind/2024 and the same is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds in quantum appeal: “1.The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the ex- parte order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio. barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable

PARAS KUMAR KOTHARI,BHOPAL vs. ITO- 2(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

delay is condoned and hearing\nis proceeded.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the\nassessee-individual is a doctor by profession. For AY 2013-14, the assessee\nfiled his return of income u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs.6,12,553/-.\nThe case was selected for scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s\n143

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

131/- 4. Unsecured loans as per para - 6 Rs. 30,000/- 5. Gratuity claim u/s 40A(7) as per para - 7 Rs. 1,45,87,125/- 6. Prepayment penalty as per para -8 Rs 10,00,000/- Total Income Assessed at Rs. 4,31,50,471/- The total income was assessed at Rs. 4,31,50,471/-. Less

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income