RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

133(6) issued to the assessee's bankers to\nfurnish the bank statement for the relevant year. The bank\nsubmitted the bank statements for the year under\nconsideration. The same has been verified and tallied with\nthe information.\n5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and\nafter due verification of the information available on record

RAMRATI SAHU,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 250(6) of the Act. The Honourable\nBombay High Court in case of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2016] 240 Taxman 133\nheld that: \"the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits.\"\nIt is therefore respectfully requested, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the\ninterest of justice, to kindly remand the matter

ANTAR SINGH MEWADA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiantar Singh Mewada, Cit(A), बनाम/ 1, Barkhera Salam 1, Nfac, Vs. Barkhera Salam, Delhi Po Bhouri, Techsil Hujur Dist. Bhopal (Pan:Bompm3467E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 3.3 The Ld. AR then submitted that in sum and substance both the “impugned assessment order” as well as the “impugned order” are bad in law, illegal and not proper. It was contended that in the “impugned assessment order” the Ld. Assessing Officer has taxed the capital gain

RAJENDRA KUMAR GANDHI,RATLAM vs. ITO-1, RATLAM, OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

condone the same. Ld. DR does not have any objection against\nsubmission and prayer of Ld. AR. Accordingly, the delay of 1 day is\ncondoned and the hearing of appeal is proceeded.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the\nassessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2017-18 declaring a\ntotal income

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

6) Guard File\nSd/-\n(B.M. BIYANI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy order\nSr. Private secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which had deleted additions made by the AO concerning unexplained loans and sundry creditors. The appeals were filed after a delay, which was condoned.", "held

HARISH CHANDRA GAVLI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

133 days in filing first-appeal before\nCIT(A). Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an\napplication for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp.\nReferring to same, Ld. AR submitted that the email id registered in\ndepartment record and also fetched in Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A) is\ntulsicon@yahoo.com which belongs

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with\nhearing.\n3. The background facts leading to present appeals are such that the\nassessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. For AY\n2017-18 & 2018-19, the assessee filed its returns/revised returns of income\nu/s 139 declaring total incomes of Rs. Nil (with current year loss

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f.\n01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector

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

PARAS KUMAR KOTHARI,BHOPAL vs. ITO- 2(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

delay is condoned and hearing\nis proceeded.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the\nassessee-individual is a doctor by profession. For AY 2013-14, the assessee\nfiled his return of income u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs.6,12,553/-.\nThe case was selected for scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s\n143

VAIBHAV MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT 4(1),IND, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

delay in filing the appeal was not condoned as the assessee failed to prove the bonafide. Furthermore, the addition of Rs. 1,26,037/- u/s 69A was based on unexplained bank deposits, and challenging this addition was beyond the scope of rectification proceedings.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "154", "250", "148", "147", "144", "133(6

KAMLESH KOUSHAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(2), INDORE

133(6) of the\nAct to bank.\n4.1\nIt is observed that the appellant has submitted\nadditional evidence during the appellate proceedings, but\nat S. No. 12 & 12.1 of Form-35, the appellant has offered\n'No' comments.\nFurther, the\nappellant could not\ndemonstrate the circumstances under which he was\nprevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence\nbefore

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

RAJESH KUMAR SAXENA,PACHORE RAJGARH vs. ITO RAJGARH, RAJGARJ MP

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condone the delay and\nappeal is admitted.\n3.2 The Ld. AR then submitted that in so far as merit of the\ncase is concerned there is an addition of Rs.36,64,145/- in the\n"impugned assessment order” dated 28.03.2016. The assessee\nis a distributor of Bharti Airtel. The Ld. AR has placed on record\nof this tribunal a paper

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

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