VIJAY KUMAR PAREKH,INDORE vs. WARD1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivijay Kumar Parekh Ito-Ward -1(1) 406-407 Apollo Tower, 2Mg Indore Road Vs. Indore-452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3277M Assessee By Shri Abhinava Jain & Sudhir Padliya, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024

149 (Chennai)(TM) delay was not condoned by the Hon'ble ITAT as it was due to negligence and inaction on part of appellant which could have very well be avoided by exercise of due care and attention. Hon'ble ITAT in the case of ITO V. Hemraj Onkarji Mali, [2009] 311 ITR (AT) 416 (Indore) decided that there

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

delay of 30 days in filing present appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider and adjudicate upon the additional ground raised by the appellant that under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is in contravention

SMT SADHNA VOHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

delay of 7 days is condoned. Appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Ground No.1 is against legality of notice u/s 153C of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. It was submitted that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is invalid and void-ab-initio as there

STUTI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,NAGDA vs. ITO 2(2), UJJAIN

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshistuti Construction Pvt. Ito 2(2), बनाम/ Ltd, Ujjain Vs. 53 Government Colony, Birla Gram, Nagda (Pan: Aahcs3932R) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

149 case No 298 that share transactions executed through Stock Exchange backed by contact note should not be considered as bogus unless concrete evidence. Furthermore statement of demat holding as on 31-03-202 and 31-03-2013 to verify holding period is submitted for consideration. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

SHRI SURESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

149, identical issue about the validity of notice u/s 274 of the Act was adjudicated and decided in the favour of the assessee after relying on various judgments of Hon'ble Apex court and other Hon'ble High Courts observing as follows: “11.8 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is evident from

SHRI RAJENDRA MANSUKHANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

149, identical issue about the validity of notice u/s 274 of the Act was adjudicated and decided in the favour of the assessee after relying on various judgments of Hon'ble Apex court and other Hon'ble High Courts observing as follows: “11.8 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is evident from

SHRI UMESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

149, identical issue about the validity of notice u/s 274 of the Act was adjudicated and decided in the favour of the assessee after relying on various judgments of Hon'ble Apex court and other Hon'ble High Courts observing as follows: “11.8 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is evident from

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced