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

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

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

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

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