THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 145(3). The CIT(A) held that the cash sales are more than 90% of total sales and as the cash bills remain with the assessee, it gives lot of scope for manipulation of rates, quantity and amount of the bills. The Hon’ble ITAT held the view that during the course of the search proceedings, not a single

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 145(3). The CIT(A) held that the cash sales are more than 90% of total sales and as the cash bills remain with the assessee, it gives lot of scope for manipulation of rates, quantity and amount of the bills. The Hon’ble ITAT held the view that during the course of the search proceedings, not a single

SATNAM TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, these appeals of Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

condone the filing-delay in present appeals and proceed to adjudicate. 4. These appeals belong to the same assessee; represented by same counsel; involve similar set of facts; and raise identical grounds for adjudication, hence they were heard together and being disposed of by this common order. We take ITA No. 917/Ind/2018 of AY 2011-12 as a lead case

SATNAM TRANSPORT CO,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, these appeals of Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

condone the filing-delay in present appeals and proceed to adjudicate. 4. These appeals belong to the same assessee; represented by same counsel; involve similar set of facts; and raise identical grounds for adjudication, hence they were heard together and being disposed of by this common order. We take ITA No. 917/Ind/2018 of AY 2011-12 as a lead case

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo- moto cognizance for extension of the limitation, the appeal of the revenue is treated as filed within the period of limitation. 3. The Revenue has raised following ground of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting

NIDHI JAIN,BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2015-16

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. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return of income of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,27,600/-. The case was selected

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

SHRI S.K.JAIN,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 285/Ind/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बनाम/ M/S S.K. Jain, The Dcit, 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Hig-20, Shivaji Nagar, Vs. Bhopal, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh – 462001 462001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs1606A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the ld. PCIT has invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act without any basis and reasoning as the AO, during the scrutiny assessment order dated 24.11.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act took a plausible view in rejecting

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

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

145 days in preferring the present appeal. “Impugned order” is dated 31.10.2023. In Form No.36 date of service of order is 31.10.2023. The instant appeal was e-filed on 23.05.2024. Condonation of delay application states that the assessee is an agriculturist and illiterate person. The assessee is not well conversant with the latest technological advancements and was unable to receive

THE PR CIT CIRCLE 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S M.P.WAREHOUSING & LOGISTIC CORPORATION, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

condone delay and proceed with appeal. 3. The solitary controversy involved between revenue/appellant and assessee/respondent is on the disallowance of salary of construction staff Page 2 of 6 M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation ITA Nos. 143/Ind/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 1,47,81,085/- made by AO during assessment-proceeding but deleted by CIT(A) in first-appeal

RAHUL SHARMA ,INDORE vs. DCIT /CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condoned. 3. The addition of Rs. 5,36,494/- on account of delayed payment to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund ( PF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is under challenge before us. 4. The addition has been made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which has been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION DIVISION NO.2 ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (TDS) , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Executive Engineer, Dy. Cit (Tds), Construction, Bhopal Division No.2, बनाम/ E-5, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Bplo 00510 G Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted and proceeded for hearing. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that a TDS survey was conducted by income-tax authorities in the premise of assessee on 18.12.2015 pursuant to which notices were issued to assessee and ultimately an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) dated 15.02.2021 was passed

SHRI ASHOK RAO THORAT,PITHAMPUR DHAR vs. ADIT, CPC JURISDICTION WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay. 3. The additions have been made in both appeals under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which have been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since the same are without appreciating the fact that the assessee has deposited the same to the respective funds within the time limit permitted under Section

SHRI ASHOK RAO THORAT,PITHAMPUR DHAR vs. ADIT, CPC JURISDICTION WARD 1(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay. 3. The additions have been made in both appeals under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act which have been wrongly held by the authorities below as contended by the assessee since the same are without appreciating the fact that the assessee has deposited the same to the respective funds within the time limit permitted under Section