SAQUIB AHMED,PIPARIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is condonable

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly the appeal filed by the assesse on 04.03.2022 is treated as within the limitation. The assesse has raised following grounds: “1. That the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore u/s 263 of the Act is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income

SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

142(1) and show cause notice u/s 144 of\nI.T. Act. It is evident from the date wise chronology of the notices\nissued that the assessee has been provided repeated opportunities\nto file the submission and to produce the books of account in support\nof his income along with the supporting documentary evidences\nregarding the source of cash deposit made

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

delay of\n78/74 days is condoned taking into account the explanation given by\nassessee in above application in the light of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs\nMst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 having settled\nthe law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the\ncause of substantial justice.\n4. Brief facts

SHRI GUPTNATH BAL SHIKSHAN SAMITI MACHALPUR,MACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nterms mentioned above

142(1)\nalso remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO issued a summon\nu/s 131 to the President of society who attended AO's office on 19.09.2019\nwherein his statements were recorded. Finally, taking into account the\nrecorded statements of the President of assessee and the audited accounts,\nthe AO accepted source of impugned cash deposits in bank a/c from

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

GANPAT SINGH,PIPLANI vs. ITO 3(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

delay in filing the appeal, taking a liberal view due to the assessee's condition and the merit of the appeal. It held that the non-compliance with multiple notices seeking the same information constitutes a single default.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "142(1)", "253(5)", "273B" ], "issues": "Whether to condone

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

condone delay. The explanation\noffered is general in nature, lacks corroborative evidence\nbeyond an affidavit, and does not inspire confidence\nthat the delay was due to reasons entirely beyond the\nappellant's control.\nHence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and\ntherefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act,\nI am not satisfied that

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order as passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 by invoking

RAVINDRA PATIDAR,RUNJI, GAUTAMPURA vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiravindra Patidar, Nfac, बनाम/ 112/2 Dharamath, Delhi Vs. Runji, Gutampura, Indore (Pan: Begpp5495H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

condone the delay. Appeal admitted and taken up for hearing. Page 2 of 8 Rvindra Patidar ITA No. 463/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 2.1 That as and by way of an order u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act a penalty of Rs.40,000/- for each non compliance to the notice(s) u/s 142(1) issued

M/S RANA & JOSHI BUILDTECH P LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: 1.“That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even

PURSHOTTAM RATHORE,RATLAM vs. ITO 1(2), UJJAIN

Appeal is partly allowed

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitted the appeal, and held that the addition made by the AO of Rs.16,69,500/- was unwarranted as the assessee had offered income of Rs.93,925/- as per Section 44AF, which was below the tax liability threshold.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "144", "69A", "142(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

delayed return, the same cannot be\ncalled to be a non-est return in law.\n8. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of\nthe orders of the lower authorities, we find that undisputedly the\nreturn was not filed by the assessee within the time prescribed\nunder section 148 of the Act. But for that reason

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the delay, holding that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, prioritizing substantial justice over technical considerations. The Quantum Appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["143(3)", "54F", "142(1

M/S AADHAR ASSOCIATES,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-2, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Aadhar Associates Pr. Cit-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavfa 7526 Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

delay of 330 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Id CIT was not justified in passing order u/s. 263, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 5 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of government works contract for construction of roads. The income-tax return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring total income