MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

149 days. Accordingly this tribunal condones the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.3 Since in the both the appeals common question arises with consent of the parties they are being heard together and is being disposed off by this common order. 2.4 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053006826(1) dated

MOHAR SINGH GOUR,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed is non payment of advance

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

149 days. Accordingly this tribunal condones the delay. Appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 2.3 Since in the both the appeals common question arises with consent of the parties they are being heard together and is being disposed off by this common order. 2.4 That as and by way of an assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1053006826(1) dated

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

b) in any other case, reject the appeal, under intimation to the National Faceless Appeal Centre; As mentioned above reasons proffered by appellant are not sufficient cause with proper explanation. 6.1.5 I find that delay of 3189 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While interpreting 'sufficient cause' vs advancing cause

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

149\nTaxman 456 / (2006) 282 ITR 321 (Guj.)\n(iv) Tanmac India v Dy. CIT (2017) 78 Taxman.com 155 (Mad.) and\n(v) Cit v. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 187 Taxman 312/320 ITR 561\nSC.\n20.\nTo sustain the finding rendered by the Tribunal on the entitlement of the\nassessee for relief under section

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f.\n01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector

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