JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 133(6) to such creditors, who duly responded confirming the loans and explaining the reasons for advancing the same. Despite this, the addition was made, which was challenged before the CIT(Appeals). ITA Nos. 276&277/Ind/2025 Jastej Gorowara vs. CIT(A) A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2015-16 7. We note that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 133(6) to such creditors, who duly responded confirming the loans and explaining the reasons for advancing the same. Despite this, the addition was made, which was challenged before the CIT(Appeals). ITA Nos. 276&277/Ind/2025 Jastej Gorowara vs. CIT(A) A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2015-16 7. We note that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay

HARI SINGH,RAISEN vs. ITO RAISEN, RAISEN

In the result “Impugned order” is set aside as and by way

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshihari Singh, Ito, Raisen बनाम/ S/O Sh. Dhara Singh, 86,Vill- Vs. Semri Khurd, Tehsil- Sultanpur, Raisen,Bhopal, Mp (Pan: Aiaps1986M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072367517 (1) dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNA vs. THE ACIT-1(1), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133 as a capital receipt and being covered by Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to further add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal Bridgestone India

LATE SHRI BALKRISHAN JOSHI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI BHOOPENDRA JOSHI),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. This is the 2nd round of litigation by assessee before us. The background facts are such that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 declaring a total income

NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under: (i) The assessee-individual is a small trader engaged in the business of oil cake (khali) at a small town ‘Chandrawati Ganj

SAI MOTORS,INDORE (M.P.) vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KHARGONE, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsai Motors, Income Tax Officer, C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Khargone 25, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafeal Tower, Vs. Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acyfs6381E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.08.2025 O R D E R

section 44AD of the Act at the rate of 8 percent of total credits in the bank account of Rs. 1,43,59,412/- which 5 also included the amount of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period in old notes (SBNs) of Rs. 13,50,000/- in respect of which separate addition had already been made

M/S. PRESTIGE FABRICATORS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

133 42,888 3. Interest on ET 11,153 15,990 Total 1,93,532/- 1,15,054 78,478 2. The Id. CIT(A), NFAC was not justified in adding Rs.4,95,540/- paid towards the rate difference in LPG Cylinder being debited in past years expenses but determined and ascertained during F.Y. 2016-17. 3. That

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was completed on 27.10.2016 accepting the total income of Rs. 19,740/- as declared by the assessee in the return of income filed. The assessee is an individual and not having any income liable to tax as stated

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay in filing the departmental appeal and admit the same for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation contractor, handling of steel materials. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.1

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay in filing the departmental appeal and admit the same for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation contractor, handling of steel materials. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.1

SURESH KUMAR,MANAS BHAWAN, RNT MARG, INDORE vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, INDORE

In the result we are of the considered

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisuresh Kumar, Ito –Burhanpur. बनाम/ 112, Manas Bhawan, Vs. 11 Rnt Marg, Indore (Pan: Eekps7728B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of 22.01.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

133(6) vide notice no ITBA/AST/S/133(6)(N)/2021- 22/1035530475(1) calling for information was issued to the Branch Manager Burhanpur Branch of Bank of India where Page 3 of 11 Suresh Kumar ITA No. 369/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 assessee had his account on 13.09.2021. In reply the branch manager has provided the details and copy of bank account statement

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated 27.08.2021; the appeal could be filed on 15.11.2021 with the delay of 8 days. The learned AR in all fairness, excepted that the delay of 8 days has been cause

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR MODI,INDORE vs. ITO , DHAR

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanivirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Kumar Modi Ito Indore Dhar बनाम/ (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Vs. P.A. No. Aispm6839R Assessee By Shri Vijay Bansal, Ar Revenue By Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

section 147/148 of the Act, which is bad in law. 7. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify any ground before final date of hearing.” 3. This appeal was required to be filed by 20.04.2020 but it was actually filed on 30.03.2021 and therefore the Registry has informed that the appeal is delayed by 344 days

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of Covid-19 restrictions. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and as also concurred with by the Ld. Departmental Representative that the issues raised in all these appeals are common and inter-linked and as also, are arising out of the similar facts, for the sake of convenience

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of Covid-19 restrictions. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and as also concurred with by the Ld. Departmental Representative that the issues raised in all these appeals are common and inter-linked and as also, are arising out of the similar facts, for the sake of convenience

DCIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, MHOW

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

delay in filing the appeals is condoned in view of Covid-19 restrictions. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and as also concurred with by the Ld. Departmental Representative that the issues raised in all these appeals are common and inter-linked and as also, are arising out of the similar facts, for the sake of convenience