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

132 of the Act, penalties were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The common legal ground taken by all these assessees is with regard to challenging the Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. legality and validity of the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is admitted by both the parties that similar notices

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

Appeals are allowed

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

1 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 The assessee paid appeal fee on 02.02.2024 which is evident from challans of payments held on record. However, since the assessee was travelling, the appeal memos could not be signed and filed within 60 days, hence the delay occurred in filing of appeal

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

Appeals are allowed

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

1 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 The assessee paid appeal fee on 02.02.2024 which is evident from challans of payments held on record. However, since the assessee was travelling, the appeal memos could not be signed and filed within 60 days, hence the delay occurred in filing of appeal

SMT. MEHA JAIN,JALGAON vs. DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

132(1) of the Income Tax Act carried out at the residence of the assessee on 16.05.2013 Page 1 of 11 Meha Jain Page 2 of 11 which was concluded on 31.05.2013. Due to the search and seizure action the reassessment proceedings were also centralized along with assessment u/s 153A of the Act. The reassessment proceedings were completed

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the Financial Assistance for industrial development and infrastructure. It declared total loss at Rs.1,55,62,351/- in the return filed on 30.09.2015. The case was selected for limited

SMT SADHNA VOHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

delay of 7 days is condoned. Appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Ground No.1 is against legality of notice u/s 153C of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. It was submitted that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is invalid and void-ab-initio as there

SHRI UMESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

132 of the Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of the Chugh Group and other associated concerns and individuals assessee’s on 21.9.2012. Unaccounted income was surrendered during the course of search under various names of individual/companies and offered to tax and the same was duly paid. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer after issuing the notice under

SHRI RAJENDRA MANSUKHANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

132 of the Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of the Chugh Group and other associated concerns and individuals assessee’s on 21.9.2012. Unaccounted income was surrendered during the course of search under various names of individual/companies and offered to tax and the same was duly paid. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer after issuing the notice under

SHRI SURESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

132 of the Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of the Chugh Group and other associated concerns and individuals assessee’s on 21.9.2012. Unaccounted income was surrendered during the course of search under various names of individual/companies and offered to tax and the same was duly paid. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer after issuing the notice under

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 action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was conducted on 04.08.2017 at premises belonging to Pradeep Saraiya and associates. This group is mainly engaged in business activities of real estate, construction and education

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

BRAJENDRA SHARMA,BARWANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SENDHWA

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act" for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1064062256(1) dated 12.04.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred

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

Appeal are allowed

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

132(5) of the Act, attachment of immovable property and issue of notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 1986-87 to 1992- 93. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 05.10.1994 granted stay for the preceding under way initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.10.1993. This stay was further extended vide order dated

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

Appeal are allowed

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

132(5) of the Act, attachment of immovable property and issue of notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 1986-87 to 1992- 93. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 05.10.1994 granted stay for the preceding under way initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.10.1993. This stay was further extended vide order dated

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

Appeal are allowed

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

132(5) of the Act, attachment of immovable property and issue of notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 1986-87 to 1992- 93. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 05.10.1994 granted stay for the preceding under way initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.10.1993. This stay was further extended vide order dated

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

Appeal are allowed

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

132(5) of the Act, attachment of immovable property and issue of notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 1986-87 to 1992- 93. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 05.10.1994 granted stay for the preceding under way initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.10.1993. This stay was further extended vide order dated

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

Appeal are allowed

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

132(5) of the Act, attachment of immovable property and issue of notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 1986-87 to 1992- 93. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 05.10.1994 granted stay for the preceding under way initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.10.1993. This stay was further extended vide order dated

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

Appeal are allowed

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

132(5) of the Act, attachment of immovable property and issue of notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 1986-87 to 1992- 93. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 05.10.1994 granted stay for the preceding under way initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.10.1993. This stay was further extended vide order dated