DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result, the “Impugned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideputy Commissioner Of Maral Overseas Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax- 4(1) Maral Srovar, V & Po, Vs. Indore Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal (Pan: Aaccm0230B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

151 18,468 2. Reserve and Surplus 5,116 - Surplus as per Profit & Loss Account 5,116 - 3. Secured Loans From Financial Institutions Rupee Term Loans 22,950 78950 Foreign Currency Loans (Rupee-tied) - 1,84,734 From Banks For working Capital - 69,053 22,950 3,32,737 7.5. Thus, the total inflow from increase in share capital

PITAMBER WADHWANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2017-18 Pitamber Wadhwani, Dcit-1(1) 101, Saakaar Kunj, 3 Indore बनाम/ Shanti Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aacpw6714B Assessee By Shri Sandeep Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

1 of 7 Pitamber Wadhwani ITA No. 513/Ind/2025 - AY 2017-18 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 151 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference: Page

M/S J.C.SHARMA & SONS,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -2, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. J.C. Sharma & Sons Pr. Cit -2 बनाम Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Aaefj 6447 L Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhuller, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed for hearing of appeal. 4. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee-firm is engaged in real-estate business. It filed return of income of the relevant AY 2015-16 on 27.09.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 39,94,050/-. The case was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” and statutory notices were issued

SHRI DEEPAK SONI, BHYOPAL vs. THE ITO 4 (3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return

SANDEEP KUMAR SONI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 4(3), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee- individual is engaged in jewellery business the name of M/s Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal. For AY 2017-18 under consideration, the assessee filed return

SHILPA MALIK,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

151 even though the same was specifically requested for by the appellant. 5. As a consequence of dismissal of the appeal the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in passing the assessment order on 16.12.2019, even when notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 18.12.2019 and 21.12.2019, requiring compliance

JABBAR KHAN,DEWAS vs. CIT , UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Jabbar Khan, Pr. Cit, Village-Siya, Tehsil-Dewas बनाम/ Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Cndpk 0362 H Assessee By Shri Ashok Mahajan, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeding for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts are such that the revenue received an information from AIR that the assessee had made cash-deposit over Rs. 10 lack in bank account during F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to the AY 2009-10 under consideration. Ld. AO formed a belief that the impugned cash

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con- doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con- doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con- doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits

M/S AADHAR ASSOCIATES,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-2, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Aadhar Associates Pr. Cit-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavfa 7526 Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

delay of 330 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Id CIT was not justified in passing order u/s. 263, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled

ROOP SINGH TANWAR,DEWAS vs. THE CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Roop Singh Tanwar Pcit Dewas Ujjain बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajtpt 7633 E Assessee By Shri A.K. Mahajan, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2022

delay is condoned and the appeal is proceeded for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts leading to present appeal are such that the revenue received an information that the assessee had made large cash- deposit in bank account, accordingly action u/s 147 was taken by issuing notice dated 23.03.2016. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income declaring

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay in filing such appeals before us. ITA No. 21/Ind/2022 (A.Y. 2009-10):- 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2009 declaring income at Rs.1,76,580/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,40,576/-. On the basis

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

condone the delay in filing such appeals before us. ITA No. 21/Ind/2022 (A.Y. 2009-10):- 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee, an individual, filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2009 declaring income at Rs.1,76,580/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,40,576/-. On the basis

NEHA TAMRAKAR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, the “Impugned Order” is set aside as & by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshineha Tamrakar, Ito -5(1), बनाम/ 177 A Sector, Indrapuri Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal(M.P.) (Pan: Ajtpt6475G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

151 of the Act notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 03.03.2016 was issued. Due to change of incumbent notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 01.08.2016, 09.09.2016, 05.10.2016, 17.11.2016 requiring the assessee to furnish the queries raised wherein by 10.08.2016, 23.09.2016, 19.10.2016, 28.11.2016. Due to change of incumbent notice u/s. 129 alongwith last opportunity issued

DILIP BUDHADEV,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. THE ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA, MADHYA PRADESH

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

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant under section 147 of the Act even when proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 153C of the Act and I not under section 147 of the Act since the document/information which