PRATHMIK KRASHI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI PEEKLON,VIDHISHA vs. ACIT, VIDHISHA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. Under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, the courts are empowered to condone the delay where a party approaching the court belatedly shows sufficient cause for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period. The meaning to be assigned to the expression "sufficient cause occurring

SMT. MEHA JAIN,JALGAON vs. DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

148 of the Act on 22.03.2013. The reassessment proceedings were pending and in the meantime there was a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act carried out at the residence of the assessee on 16.05.2013 Page 1 of 11 Meha Jain Page 2 of 11 which was concluded on 31.05.2013. Due to the search

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

2,148,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act was proposed. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also proposed in SCN. In response thereto AR of the assessee furnished reply on 28.02.2002 at final stage of assessment proceedings which examined and found not convincing. The relevant portion

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

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

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

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

2 of 10 Mohar Singh Gour ITA Nos. 649 & 650/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 hearing held on 02.06.2025 and it was stated at bar that an affidavit is placed on (sent on speed post Saturday i.e. 30.05.2025) record substantiating the “sufficient cause” in the condonation of delay application. Per contra Ld. DR has left it to this Tribunal’s wisdom to take appropriate

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

2 of 10 Mohar Singh Gour ITA Nos. 649 & 650/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 hearing held on 02.06.2025 and it was stated at bar that an affidavit is placed on (sent on speed post Saturday i.e. 30.05.2025) record substantiating the “sufficient cause” in the condonation of delay application. Per contra Ld. DR has left it to this Tribunal’s wisdom to take appropriate

ONEEL VERMA,NASHIK vs. ITO-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

section 148. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer ofnot issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is the mandatory requirement. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case

ARP SECURITIES LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1), INDORE

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal found the \"impugned order\" to be not meritorious and set it aside. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "253", "250", "147", "144", "144B", "68", "148", "142(1)", "246A", "148(2

MAKSON HEALH CARE P LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE DCIT/ACIT1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

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

section 36(1)(i) amounting to Rs. 98,95,148/-. Page 2 of 9 ITA No.34 & 35/Ind/2023 Makson Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 9 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in disallowing delayed payment of employees contributions to PF and ESIC amounting

MAKSON HEALTH CARE P LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE DCIT/ACCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

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

section 36(1)(i) amounting to Rs. 98,95,148/-. Page 2 of 9 ITA No.34 & 35/Ind/2023 Makson Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 9 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in disallowing delayed payment of employees contributions to PF and ESIC amounting

KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and\ntechnical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial\njustice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus,\ntaking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay,\nadmit appeal

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 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 No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079308840(1) dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred

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 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 No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079308840(1) dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred

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

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

148.\n20. Section 139 falls under Chapter XIV-'Procedure for assessment' which provides procedures and conditions for filing of return of income. Section 139(1) mandates every person having income exceeding the maximum amount not chargeable to tax to file return of income. Similarly, section 139(1) (4A) mandates that every person in receipt of income derived from property held