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

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

145 and without passing order U/S 144, estimated the gross profit of Rs. 18,93,045/- (Rs. 10,29,1211- confirmed by CIT (A), Ujjain) and passed order U/S 143(3). Also assesse had produced books of accounts before the Assessing Officer & same has been written in Para no. 4 of his order. Therefore, estimating the profit

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

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 249(3) of the Act as discussed supra. 7. In the result, appellant appeal against the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of AY 2014-15 dated 23.03.2022 is dismissed. 2.5 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 249(3) of the Act as discussed supra. 7. In the result, appellant appeal against the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of AY 2014-15 dated 23.03.2022 is dismissed. 2.5 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form

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

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

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred

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

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred

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

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

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

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