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

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

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

delay of 30 days in filing present appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider and adjudicate upon the additional ground raised by the appellant that under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is in contravention

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

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

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

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

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

4,80,000/- 03. The Id. CIT (Appeal) has ignored/overlooked to consider the evidences and explanation furnished by the appellant and as such entire order has become arbitrary and baseless which deserves to be quashed. 04. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that when the department has carried out search

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 253(5) and the Page 2 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, 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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 253(5) and the Page 2 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, 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

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

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

132(4) without providing a copy of Statement and affording an opportunity to Cross Examine Sh. Santosh Ramtani and as such the Re-assessment Order dated 28.11.2022 is unlawful and void, which may please be quashed. 05. That an addition of Rs. 50.00 Lakhs made in the hands of Appellant u/s 69 on the basis of Cock and Bull story

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

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

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

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

SHRI KAMAL KISHORE KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.(Ss)A. Nos. 186 To 190/Ind/2016 & I.T.A.No 1019/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2000-01 To 2004-05 & A.Y. 2006-07 Shri Kamal Kishore Kotwani, Vs. Acit. Prop.M/S. K.K.Enterprises, 1(2), 192, Prabhu Nagar, Idgah Bhopal Hills, Bhopal अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Abjpk1966H

delay of two days is condoned. Apppeals are taken up for hearing. 4. First, we take up I.T.(SS)A.No. 186/Ind/2016 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that

SHRI JANKILAL,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

condone the delay and proceed for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee submitted return of income of relevant AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 which was subjected to scrutiny assessment. Finally, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) at the returned income. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment-proceeding and viewed