M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

5 (Karnataka) , it has been held that the show cause notice under section 274 was defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently, penalty 22 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. imposed was cancelled. The case law in the case: of Mahabir Prasad Agarwal v . ACIT

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

5 (Karnataka) , it has been held that the show cause notice under section 274 was defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently, penalty 22 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. imposed was cancelled. The case law in the case: of Mahabir Prasad Agarwal v . ACIT

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 of 13 Nirmal Ramtani IT(SS)A No. 21 to 25/Ind/2025 & ITANo.634/Ind/2025 A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2015-16 income & was supposed to keep an eye on the ITBA Portal for the due Compliances. The said Shri MK Sharma was a senior citizen & was suffering from heart disease & he expired in the year 2021. The "Impugned order

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

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

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

In the result, the “Impugned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideputy Commissioner Of Maral Overseas Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax- 4(1) Maral Srovar, V & Po, Vs. Indore Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal (Pan: Aaccm0230B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

132) Madras "In our opinion, in view of the above clear cut ruling by the Supreme Court it is necessary to give a finding of facts in regard to monies that were kept in deposit from out of the share application monies. In the light of the Supreme Court decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra), it is only

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

In the result we are of the considered opinion that the

5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed." 2.3 The Assessee being Aggrieved by the "Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form No. 36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:- "01.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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