M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

condonation of delay of 156 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. In this regard, in para 2.6 of the application/affidavit it has been mentioned as under:- “2.6. However, during the course of appeal as filed against the order passed under section 153A

NEPAL SINGH KUSHWAH,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshinepal Singh Kushwah, Cit(A), बना B-157, Lig Colony, Nfac, म/ Indore Delhi Vs. (Pan: Akupk8255H) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 153A of the Income Tax Act for the same assessment year, the alleged loan of Rs. 40,00,000/-was not added to his income. This indicates that the department itself did not consider the Page 3 of 9 Nepal Singh Kushwah ITA No. 734/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2014-15 loan to be real or valid in the hands of the recipient

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

section 253(5) and the Page 2 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

section 253(5) and the Page 2 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request

NIRMAL RAMTANI,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

delay is\nnot abnormal. It is not deliberate. Hence we condone the\ndelay as sufficient cause is shown. Accordingly we admit the\nAppeal.\n3.2 The Id. AR then submitted that search and seizure action\nunder section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was\nconducted on 04.08.2017 at premises belonging to Pradeep\nSaraiya and associates. This group is mainly engaged

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

153A", "143(3)", "274", "5A" ], "issues": "Whether the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are valid when the show-cause notice fails to specify the exact charge under Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars), and whether the delay in filing an appeal can be condoned

NEEL KUMAR AJMERA ,INDORE vs. THE A.C.I.T 4 (1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the ITAT for fresh adjudication.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not in conformity with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act and that the non-participation of the assessee was due to non-receipt of notices, as accepted by the High Court. Therefore, the appeal

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

153A\nr.w.s.143(3) vide assessment-orders dated 28.03.2013 and the assessment\nof AY 2012-13 was made u/s 143(3) vide assessment-order dated\n30.03.2015. The AO made certain additions in these assessment-orders.\nSimultaneously, the AO also initiated proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and issued\nshow-cause notices u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c). Copies of show

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

153A\nr.w.s.143(3) vide assessment-orders dated 28.03.2013 and the assessment\nof AY 2012-13 was made u/s 143(3) vide assessment-order dated\n30.03.2015. The AO made certain additions in these assessment-orders.\nSimultaneously, the AO also initiated proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and issued\nshow-cause notices u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c). Copies of show

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 on 28.3.2013, made an opinion that as for these two assessment years books of accounts were found defective and not reliable, same methodology should be adopted for Assessment Year 2012-13. Ld. A.O. accordingly rejected the book results and estimated the income by making

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 on 28.3.2013, made an opinion that as for these two assessment years books of accounts were found defective and not reliable, same methodology should be adopted for Assessment Year 2012-13. Ld. A.O. accordingly rejected the book results and estimated the income by making

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 on 28.3.2013, made an opinion that as for these two assessment years books of accounts were found defective and not reliable, same methodology should be adopted for Assessment Year 2012-13. Ld. A.O. accordingly rejected the book results and estimated the income by making