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), 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

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

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

BRAJENDRA SHARMA,BARWANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SENDHWA

In the result “impugned order” is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld

132 days, accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\nBrajendra Sharma\nITA No. 762/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13\n3.2 Thereafter the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee interalia contended that the “impugned order” is illegal, bad in law and not proper. It is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It should therefore

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

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

delay is\nnot abnormal. It is not deliberate. Hence we condone the\ndelay as sufficient cause is shown. Accordingly we admit the\nAppeal.\n3.2 The Id. AR then submitted that search and seizure action\nunder section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was\nconducted on 04.08.2017 at premises belonging to Pradeep\nSaraiya and associates. This group is mainly engaged

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench", "summary": { "facts": "Three appeals were filed by the assessee against penalty orders for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2012-13. The penalties were imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act following search assessments. The appeals

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

condone the delay as assessee has\nshown sufficient\ncause. The delay is bonafide too.\nAccordingly we admit the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that\nthe issue under second appeal of addition is a covered issue\nby several orders & decisions of this Tribunal. The same may\nbe noted. Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for & on behalf of\nthe Revenue contended

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

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

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

132(4) without providing a copy of\nStatement and affording an opportunity to Cross Examine Sh.\nSantosh Ramtani and as such the Re-assessment Order dated\n28.11.2022 is unlawful and void, which may please be quashed.\n05. That an addition of Rs. 50.00 Lakhs made in the hands of\nAppellant u/s 69 on the basis of Cock and Bull story